Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STANDING ORDERS

2.35 p.m.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I beg to move,
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relative to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 10, page 108, line 61, leave out 'are intended to be.' and insert 'have been.'

Standing Order 28, page 120, line 11, leave out 'three,' and insert 'two and a half.'

Standing Order 28, page 120, line 16, leave out from beginning, to end of line 19, and insert—

'Provided that it shall not be necessary for the map to show the existing or proposed boundaries of a county other than a county the council whereof is promoting the Bill.'

Standing Order 37, page 125, line 12, leave out 'common or commonable.'

Standing Order 37, page 125, line 15, leave out 'common or commonable.'

Standing Order 39, page 126, line 9, after 'Supply,' insert 'the Ministry of Fuel and Power.'

Standing Order 39, page 126, line 12, leave out from beginning, to end of line 14."

At this stage of a Session it is almost always necessary to ask the House to make a few miscellaneous changes in Private Business Standing Orders. The full list of these will presently be submitted; meanwhile there are a few amendments which are urgent because they affect steps which the promoters of Private Bills must take before 20th November. One of those steps is the deposit of a plan under Standing Order 28 where a Bill proposes to alter the boundaries of local authorities. The present Order requires that the existing and proposed boundaries shall be

shown on an ordnance map on a scale of not less than three inches to the mile. This causes difficulty because the Ordnance Survey do not at present publish a three-inch scale series, so that either special maps must be made or the six-inch scale must be used.

There is, however, a new ordnance series very slightly larger than 2½ inches to the mile. It is, therefore, proposed to substitute the minimum requirement of 2½ inches to the mile in Standing Order 28 for the existing minimum of three inches to the mile, and so to make the new ordnance series available. I am sure the House will agree that we do not want to multiply these map requirements unnecessarily. It is regarded as unnecessary for the map to show existing or proposed county boundaries except those of a county which is itself promoting a Bill. It is, therefore, proposed to insert a proviso to that effect at the end of paragraph (1) of Standing Order 28; it will replace the present proviso which is no longer required.

The second urgent amendment is one in which the Ministry of Agriculture is interested. The Ministry examines all Private Bills to see what land may perhaps be diverted from its present agricultural use. The Ministry at present gets a copy of all Private Bills under the general provisions of Standing Order 39 (1), but in practice it is not always easy for the Ministry to identify particular fields. So that it is proposed that the Ministry shall get a copy of any deposited plans where a Bill proposes the compulsory purchase or use of land. This amendment can be made quite simply, as set out on the Order Paper, by dropping the words "common or commonable" out of Standing Order 37 (2).

The Ministry and representatives of the Parliamentary Agents who promote these Bills are satisfied, as I am myself, of the desirability and the urgency of these small amendments. There is one other change, a minor verbal change, which is suggested in Standing Order 10 dealing with newspaper notices. I hope the House may approve these minor alterations in Standing Orders.

Question put, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Agricultural Land

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he can give an estimate of the amount of agricultural land which it will be necessary to use during the next decade if the present plans for the building of schools, new towns, special roads and other non-agricultural activities are brought into effect as planned.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): On the information at present available it is impracticable to make an estimate of the kind desired. Some assessment of the amount of agricultural land likely to be used for other purposes may be possible when local planning authorities have submitted their development plans under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.

Brigadier Rayner: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether he will bear in mind that as priorities pile up under the present administration it becomes urgently necessary to conserve every possible yard of ground for food production?

Mr. Silkin: That, of course, is always urgently necessary, and I will constantly bear it in mind.

New Town, Congleton

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he is now able to make a further statement with regard to the proposed new town at Congleton.

Mr. Silkin: No, Sir. Investigations are still in progress to determine the suitability of the area, both from the point of view of geology and water supply. A further statement will be made when these investigations have been completed, but it is now clear that they must take some time.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the cuts announced by the Prime Minister yesterday will have any bearing on the

construction of die new towns, and will he give some indication of what the tests have so far borne out?

Mr. Silkin: In reply to the first point, "No." The new towns are proceeding, subject, of course, to the general reduction in the number of houses. On the second point, there is no evidence of salt so far as we have gone, but we want to make further borings.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the comprehensive plan for the North Staffordshire area has been published and, if that has any bearing on Congleton, will he bear it in mind?

Mr. Silkin: Certainly.

Mr. Harold Davies: Will my right hon. Friend keep in touch with the rural authorities, such as Biddulph and others in the district, before any definite agreements are made on this point?

Mr. Silkin: Before any definite steps are taken, I am bound by statute to consult the local authorities who appear to be concerned.

Mr. Davies: My information is that some of them are dissatisfied.

Works Site, Ormskirk

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what action has been taken by his Department to find a suitable site for the proposed engineering workshop of Messrs. F. H. Burgess, Ltd., in Ormskirk, Lancashire, about which negotiations have been going on since July, 1948.

Mr. Silkin: There was never any question of the Department finding a site. This was a matter for the local planning authority. They have tried and failed to find a suitable site and the matter has now come to appeal. I am therefore holding a local inquiry on 15th November next.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that this Stafford firm acquired a site in Ormskirk before 1948 with the planning consent of the Ormskirk Council and that there has been deadlock over the question for more than 12 months owing to the obstructive attitude of the Lancashire County Planning Committee? Will he do something to get a move on so that this work may be provided in Lancashire?

Mr. Silkin: I cannot, of course, accept my hon. Friend's statement as to the attitude of the local authority, but I am getting a move on by holding the local inquiry on 15th November.

Dulcote Hill, Wells (Quarrying)

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether, arising out of his recent interview with the deputation interested in the matter, he has yet examined the question of his power to reconsider the permission to carry quarrying over the crest of Dulcote Hill.

Mr. Silkin: Yes, Sir. My decision is final. It can only be revoked if the circumstances set out in Sections 21 and 100 of the 1947 Act arise, and I am satisfied that these have not arisen.

Mr. Hollis: Is not the Minister aware that, in point of fact, this decision was taken under the impression that there was a unique value in this particular limestone, and that it now turns out not to be so?

Mr. Silkin: There have been no new circumstances at all. The facts which the hon. Member states were brought out fully at the inquiry.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread distress caused at home and abroad by this threat to the beauty of Wells and its surroundings; and, if he has no power under the existing Act, will he introduce immediate legislation to prevent this disaster?

Mr. Silkin: I am not aware of the widespread distress which the hon. and learned Member says this decision has caused; indeed, my information is quite to the contrary.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will the Minister look at this again, because there is undoubtedly a considerable feeling among people who have taste and who dislike vandalism. If this quarry is allowed to proceed the setting of one of the choicest mediæval shrines in this country will be adversely affected. I really want to press the Minister on this.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Member can press, of course, but he is making an

ex parte statement which is very exaggerated and all of which was fully brought out at the inquiry.

Commander Galbraith: Has the right hon. Gentleman visited Wells personally?

Mr. Silkin: I cannot. I get 400 appeals a month and I cannot visit every area, but my inspector, in whom I have complete confidence, has visited the area and has given me a full statement of the position with maps, pictures and diagrams.

Mr. Keeling: Surely the Minister is aware that Wells is one of the six most beautiful towns in England? Surely he will spare the time to visit it?

Mr. Silkin: I know Wells, of course, and I am quite aware of its beauty. I did not go down particularly for this appeal.

Mr. Gallacher: People who have no taste like to look at this quarry.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Has the Minister looked into the possibility of this quarrying being carried out in the Mendips and the necessary material coming from those hills, by abandoning this project altogether?

Mr. Silkin: I have looked into the question of an alternative site, but I am quite satisfied that wherever one goes there will be objections like the one made by hon. Members today.

Mr. Hollis: In view of the reply I beg to give notice that I shall raise the subject on the Adjournment.

Development Rights (Claims)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what are the aggregate amounts of claims of specified sums for loss of development rights in respect of properties in England and Wales and in Scotland, respectively.

Mr. Silkin: The great proportion of the 900,000-odd claims received have already been distributed all over the country to valuation offices for assessment, and the value of the information asked for would not justify the dislocation and cost involved in recalling and summarising them to obtain it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Local Authorities (Casual Employees)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will review the ruling of his department that persons casually employed by local authorities in the preparation of electoral lists are self-employed or non-employed persons, in view of the hardship this ruling has caused.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): Yes, Sir. I intend shortly to put before the National Insurance Advisory Committee proposals for amending the National Insurance Classification Regulations on this point.

Family Allowances

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he is aware that when a child is sent to an approved school, its parents, though thereby excluded from receiving any family allowance, may nevertheless be called upon to contribute to its maintenance while away from home and have to bear the cost of such maintenance while the child is on holiday and, in view of the hardship thus entailed, whether he will amend his regulations to enable such parents to receive the benefit of the family allowances scheme.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The rule to which the hon. Member refers is laid down in the Family Allowances Act itself. The parent's contribution is fixed by the Court in relation to his means and in fixing it the Court would take note of the fact that he would not get an allowance for the child in such a case. As regards holidays, I understand that the parent's contribution is usually remitted while the child is at home.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Will my right hon. Friend answer the part of the Question which suggests that he should alter the rule which, in these cases, obviously defeats the very purpose of the family allowances scheme? If he will not give way on this and will not allow the scheme to work for these unhappy families, will he not approach the Home Office with the object of seeing that parents who are denied family allowances do not have to contribute to the maintenance of their children?

Mr. Griffiths: It is not a rule; it is a provision in the Act itself and it could not, therefore, be changed without legislation.

Sickness Benefit

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of National Insurance what has been the percentage increase in claims for sick benefits in the first year of the scheme as compared with the year earlier.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I regret that I cannot give the figure asked for as the total number of sickness benefit claims made in any year under the old scheme was not known. The comparison would in any case be misleading as many more people are covered by the new Act.

Major Lloyd: Does the Minister mean to suggest that there would be nothing scandalous in the comparison provided by the figures, if they were available? Is he not aware that the great majority of the people of the country are fully aware that if the figures were available they would be most scandalous and that that statement has been supported by several hon. Members opposite in debate? May I ask the Minister what steps the Government propose to take to stop a minority of the people from exploiting their fellow countrymen in this way?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not think the statement should go out unchallenged that the administration is scandalous. It is nothing of the kind. The Question asked whether comparisons could be given with the old scheme. I have stated the reasons why they cannot be given.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the whole purpose of the Government's policy for the past four years has been precisely to prevent a minority of the people from exploiting the rest?

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of National Insurance what was the number of doubtful claims for sickness benefit referred to the regional medical officers in the past 12 months as compared with the previous 12 months.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The number of cases in which claimants to sickness benefit were referred to regional medical officers for second medical opinions in the 12 months ended 30th September, 1949, was 202,188. The number for the previous 12 months was 75,189.

Contributions

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he is aware of the anxiety caused by the Form C.F.41 which he has sent out to certain classes of insured persons and which provides for loss of benefit unless former voluntary contributors maintain an unbroken contributory record; and whether he will in future simply define the advantages to the contributors and leave the payment of arrears to their own discretion.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The document in question does not specifically require payment of arrears and I was not aware that it had given rise to anxiety. So far as future statements are concerned the point will not arise as they will relate to contributions under the new Act, none of which are on a voluntary basis.

Captain John Crowder: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he is aware of the hardship caused to many insurance contributors who find that they are not entitled to sickness or maternity benefit, owing to the fact that they have been placed in Groups C or D and therefore that their contribution year and benefit year differs from contributors placed by chance in Groups A or B, despite the fact that since 5th July, 1948, they have paid identical insurance contributions and whether he is prepared to re-consider this matter.

Mr. Steele: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member has in mind persons who were in arrears under the old scheme. For a limited period the sickness and maternity benefits of such people will differ according to the group in which they are placed for the purposes of the new scheme. This is an unavoidable result of the arrangements which had to be made to bring the new scheme into force, and I regret that I cannot undertake to re-open the matter.

Captain Crowder: I am dealing with the new entrants into the scheme, not those in arrears before. If any administrative difficulties arise would it not be possible for the contributor in the C or D groups to send in his partly stamped card with a claim for benefit, because he has paid the same and his card is not in the Ministry? It seems very unfair, because he is put into a different group simply by chance, that he should lose his benefits.

Mr. Steele: I was not aware that there were any difficulties in connection with new entrants. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me any specific cases he has in mind I shall be only too pleased to look into them.

Captain Crowder: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have referred two cases to the Minister, and that he is dealing with them. I believe, at the moment?

Ministry Staff, Edinburgh (Ex-Service Men)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many disabled ex-Service men employed as temporary clerks in the Central Pensions Branch of the Ministry of National Insurance, Grassmarket, Edinburgh, have received notices to terminate their employment on account of redundancy; and how many part-time female temporary clerks are employed in the same office and have not received similar notices to terminate their employment on account of redundancy.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): No final notices have been given but preliminary warnings of probable redundancy have been given in a number of cases. Three of those affected have claimed to be disabled ex-Service men and their cases are being investigated. Two part-time women clerks who are senior in service to these men are employed in this office.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think it is wrong in principle that ex-Service men, particularly those who are disabled, should be discharged while part-time female clerks are retained?

Mr. Steele: First of all, these men have been given only preliminary notice of a possible redundancy. The second point in the Question is answered by the fact that the redundancy is dealt with under an agreement which is arranged at national level with the staff associations concerned.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Should not the agreement be revised to prevent this sort of thing happening?

Mr. Steele: That is a matter for the staff association.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: In localities where there is redundancy is it taken into account whether there are female employees who could be discharged before the ex-Service men are discharged?

Mr. Steele: The whole question of redundancy is a matter which has been agreed nationally by the staff associations concerned, and, therefore, it is our duty to ensure that those agreements are maintained.

Mr. Mathers: Is the Minister aware that local branches of the staff associations are complaining about the way in which this matter is being handled at the present time? Would he make certain that the ex-Service men are not prejudiced by the retention of those who, according to the staff associations have less claim to be retained?

Mr. Steele: Before discharging seriously disabled people, whether they are ex-Service men or not, serious consideration is given to them. So far as the staff association is concerned, they have their own machinery which, I think, should be used in these cases.

Appeal Centres, Bristol

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many centres there are in Bristol where appeals for supplementary allowances are heard; and if he will consider establishing more of these in order to save aged people the trouble of travelling many miles across the city to state their case.

Mr. Steele: Appeals by applicants for assistance grants are heard in one centre at Bristol. The centre is well served by public transport, the cost of which is refunded to persons attending. As the number of appeals considered by the Tribunal during the past six months averaged less than three a week, and elderly appellants and others may, if they wish, be represented or accompanied by a friend, the National Assistance Board do not consider that the provision of other appeal centres would be justified at present.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that at the time of the introduction of the National Insurance scheme there were 12 centres in Bristol to which the old people could go to make their appeals?

It is not a question of expense but of the difficulties of those people travelling across the city six or seven miles.

Mr. Steele: The matter is, of course, appreciated, but I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that there are grave difficulties in securing premises in Bristol, and that the National Assistance Board have made what they feel are the best arrangements in the circumstances. If my hon. Friend would wish to discuss it further with me I should be only too pleased to do so.

Mr. Awbery: Would my hon. Friend consider making it a moveable committee covering various parts of the city? That would obviate the difficulty of the old age pensioners who have to travel those long distances.

Mr. Steele: That would not overcome the difficulty of getting suitable premises.

Statistics

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of National Insurance, how many people are insurable under the National Insurance Act; how many such persons were insured during each of the four weeks in August; what steps are being taken to trace those who are evading paying contributions; and in how many cases legal proceedings have been taken and with what result.

Mr. Steele: The total number of persons insurable under the National Insurance Acts is estimated to be about 24½ million, but it is not possible to say how many are insured in a particular week. All practicable steps are taken through the Department's inspectorate and local office machinery to secure compliance by persons liable to pay contributions. Since July, 1948, legal proceedings for noncompliance have been taken in about 500 cases, and convictions have been secured in practically all cases.

Major Beamish: Is it not a most strange state of affairs that there is no machinery for checking on the large scale evasions which are taking place? Could the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that the loss to the Exchequer annually is in the neighbourhood of £100,000?

Mr. Steele: Of course, there is machinery for checking these matters. The machinery, I think, is working very well.

Major Beamish: No.

Mr. Steele: So far as the self-employed and non-employed people are concerned,—those who are mostly concerned in this matter—they have been co-operating very well with the Department.

Mr. Bramall: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind as specially important in these cases, the point that where men are separated from their wives, the wives may find, on the death of their husbands, that they have lost their entitlement to widows' pensions because the duty to pay contributions has not been enforced?

Mr. Steele: Of course, that is an entirely different matter.

Benefit Claim, Slough (Inquiries)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that an official of his Department at Slough recently cross-questioned an applicant for sick benefit, whose name and address have been supplied to the Minister, as to why, in certain circumstances, he employed the services of a private doctor, and what fee had been paid; and whether he will issue instructions that this interference into the rights of the private citizen shall cease forthwith.

Mr. Steele: I am looking into this matter, and I will write to the hon. Member when my inquiries are complete.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Yes, but would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is highly reprehensible conduct, that one of the officials of his Department should cross-question an applicant as to whether he had employed the services of a private doctor, and should try to persuade him not to do so? Surely an individual should be left freely to choose a doctor from inside the scheme or outside, as he wishes?

Mr. Steele: Any practice of this kind contained in the allegation would, of course, be entirely unauthorised, but I should like to make further investigations before making any further comment.

National Assistance

Mr. John Foster: asked the Minister of National Insurance what was the number of persons receiving public

assistance in the months of August, 1949, and August, 1948, respectively; and the total amounts paid in each of these months.

Mr. Steele: The number of applicants in receipt of regular grants of national assistance was 1,107,199 at the end of August, 1949, and 898,690 at the end of August, 1948; the total amount paid was about £3,835,000 in August, 1949, and £3,370,000 in August, 1948.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

National Dock Labour Board

Mr. Marples: asked the Minister of Labour whether, with a view to preventing a recurrence of trouble in the docks, he will consider the appointment of a committee to make recommendations on the composition, powers and duties of the National Dock Labour Board.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): No, Sir. The recent troubles at the docks arose over matters unconnected with the Decasualisation Scheme.

Mr. Marples: In view of the fact that the trouble in the docks has been more widespread than that in any other major industry, and that investigation into the Dock Labour Board could not be carried on when tempers were high, would it not be a wise precautionary measure to proceed now, when tempers are calm and the men are back at work?

Mr. Isaacs: I see no reason for investigating the conduct of the National Dock Labour Board.

Mr. Awbery: Is not the number of days lost in strikes in the docks now, less under the Dock Labour Corporation than in any other period of its history?

Mr. Mellish: Is not this matter one which should come from the trade unions and not Members of Parliament?

Mr. Keenan: Would the Minister take note that the trouble in this industry has largely been caused by the interference of those not connected with it?

Mr. Isaacs: I thought I made it clear that I can see no reason for questioning the conduct of the National Dock Labour Board.

Wage Agreements (Cost of Living)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour how many workers are covered by agreements providing for automatic increases in wages or other remuneration in the event of a rise in the cost of living.

Mr. Isaacs: About 1½ million.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the policy of the Government with regard to the continuance or non-continuance of these agreements in present circumstances, and can he indicate whether he is taking any initiative in the matter?

Mr. Isaacs: I think that that is quite another question. If the hon. Gentleman will put it down I shall try to give him an answer.

Coal Industry (Manpower)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to check the decline in manpower in the coal industry.

Mr. Isaacs: The decline in manpower in the coal industry is due to increased wastage rather than to a decrease in recruitment. My Department is continuing to do everything in its power both to encourage recruitment to the industry and to prevent the loss of workers who can make a useful contribution to coal production.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that none of the target figures in the last three Economic Surveys that proposed an increase in this industry's manpower has been reached, and that a decrease has now set in? Does that not arouse in the right hon. Gentleman's mind the possibility that his system of a ring fence round this industry is thoroughly unsound?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, I think it rather proves the contrary. [Laughter.] I will amend that. I am sure it rather proves the contrary. So far as wastage is concerned—"wastage" is not a good word—it is due to men leaving the industry, but there is not the need for the number that was anticipated because of the increasing use of mechanical devices, which are taking the places of men.

Mr. Frank Byers: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Control of Engagement Order, therefore, is now a permanent part of Socialist policy?

Mr. Isaacs: It does not mean anything of the sort.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Scotland the question of manpower in the mines is closely related to the question of housing in the mining areas? Will he look into the whole question of the shortage of building labour in Scotland to make sure that the people who work at the mines have somewhere to live?

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this ring fence round the industry is not, in his opinion, deterring men in any circumstances from entering the industry?

Mr. Isaacs: I said I am quite sure in my own mind that it is having no deterrent effect in the industry.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that if any young Tory Members want to work in the mines they will find no obstacles in their way?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the supplementary answer to my supplementary question indicate that the right hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with this decline in the manpower of this industry, and if it does not, can he tell the House what steps he is taking to arrest it?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member must not put a question which can be answered both ways at once. The answer which I have given is that we do not consider the declining manpower to be so serious in view of its relation to the increase in mechanisation.

Weekly Earnings, Scotland

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the average weekly earnings for the last pay week in April, 1949, for the same Scottish industries as are provided on page 300 of the September issue of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Isaacs: These figures are not very readily available, but I will send the hon. Member information relating to the more important industries in the course of a few days.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that all the material required to provide this survey for the United Kingdom ought also to be available for Scotland, if it is to be a true picture, will my right hon. Friend not try to give the information asked for in the Question?

Mr. Isaacs: That is exactly what I have said. I will get the information and send it to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION HOSTELS

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of recent increased charges for residents, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the administrative costs of National Service Corporation hostels.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. The present charges to residents are in line with those paid for comparable private lodgings and I am satisfied that they cannot be reduced by further economies in administration.

Mr. Haire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is strong feeling among residents in these hostels that the increased charges are unfair, and that equivalent savings could be made in the administrative costs, especially by way of reduction of staff, and does not that constitute a need for inquiry?

Mr. Isaacs: I am sorry to have to disagree, but there is no strong feeling about these increased charges. There is a general feeling among the occupants of the hostels that they are getting good value for money, and that for the extra 5s. it is worth their while to stay there rather than to go outside.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Chemists' Accounts

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of Slate for Scotland (1) whether he is aware that many chemists in Edinburgh are being faced with serious financial difficulties owing to the long delay in the settlement of their accounts for services rendered under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947; and what steps he is taking to expedite settlement of these outstanding claims;
(2) what administrative measures he proposes to take to ensure that in the coming year accounts rendered by chemists in Scotland for services given under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, will receive prompt payment.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): Substantial monthly payments to account have been made to all chemists, at rates which have recently been increased with retrospective effect. An abbreviated system of pricing, designed to produce a quicker final settlement, is now being put into operation; and its continuance is being discussed with representatives of the Scottish chemists.

Lieut.-Colonel Hutchison: Is the Secretary of State aware that much of the delay takes place in the price checking bureau in Glasgow, and will he look into that point? Will he also make an additional interim payment as an emergency measure in those cases where there are long-standing claims to be settled?

Mr. Woodburn: Under the new scheme there has been a very large number of prescriptions compared with what had been anticipated. To deal with them under the old system would have required a very big increase of staff, and we are reluctant to add to the staff. What we have done is to negotiate with the chemists to have a new agreement, as a simplified final arrangement, which will enable us to meet practically 90 per cent. of the claims of the chemists within one week of the claims being sent in.

Mr. Maclay: Is the Secretary or State aware that a week or two ago there were many claims all over Scotland from chemists who had received no payment for four, five or six months, and that in the effort to clear some of the back claims proposals were made which, if accepted, would mean that chemists were asked to take much less then they expected when the scheme first started?

Mr. Woodburn: Not at all. That is not the case. In any case, I do not think that the chemists can complain of their remuneration.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Can the Minister say what he intends to do about back claims and how soon he intends to clear off these arrears?

Mr. Woodburn: Substantial payments have been made, and we are dealing with the claims as quickly as possible. We are certainly not going to increase the staff to clear up the back claims, but we will do our best in all the circumstances.

Local Authorities (Dean of Guild)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what stage has been reached in his inquiry into the right of the Dean of Guild and Deacon Convenor to sit as members of Glasgow Corporation and similar offices, where they obtain, in the large Scottish burghs.

Mr. Woodburn: I have now obtained comprehensive information and this is being considered.

Major Lloyd: Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State did not promise to inquire into the right of the Dean of Guild, and the right does not arise; and, therefore, the Question itself is wrong?

Mr. Woodburn: Whatever is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's memory in regard to this matter, the Secretary of State is inquiring into the whole question of the Dean of Guild.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the Question has been submitted to and accepted by the Table, how can the Question be wrong?

Mr. Speaker: It is not within my power to say whether a Question is right or wrong, but it is in Order if it has been accepted by the Table.

Ploughing Grant

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what approximate acreage will rank for ploughing subsidy in Scotland for autumn, 1949.

Mr. Woodburn: I have no means of knowing what acreage will rank for ploughing grant until all the claims for grant have been submitted and examined. For purposes of estimate it was assumed that about half the acreage of last year would qualify.

Mr. Spence: In that case, can the Minister say what the figure amounts to?

Mr. Woodburn: We estimated that 180,000 acres would be ploughed up after the 1949 harvest by 31st December.

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reports he has received recently regarding the conditions of grazing on grasslands that are now to be ploughed in order to rank for subsidy by 31st December, 1949.

Mr. Woodburn: It has been reported to me that owing to the recent favourable weather grazing conditions in Scotland are generally very satisfactory.

Mr. Spence: Will the Secretary of State reconsider his answer of last week that he would not amend the Statute to enable him to pay the ploughing subsidy after 31st December, in view of the loss that will be caused at this time to National economy if we plough in good grain?

Mr. Woodburn: No, Sir. The decision was made two years ago, and everyone in the farming community knew that the ploughing subsidy would come to an end on 31st December. That was taken into account when prices were settled in February of this year, and, therefore, it is a matter for the farmer's own discretion how he deals with the land in these circumstances.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would not the Secretary of State reconsider this? Does he not wish to have as much land as possible ploughed up with a view to the 1950 crop, and should not the datum line be that it is completed in time to plant that crop?

Mr. Woodburn: It is essential that the ploughing should be done before 31st December.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The farmers cannot do it.

Mr. Woodburn: With regard to the question of increasing the subsidy, because that is what it means, I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister.

Commander Galbraith: Was the Secretary of State aware two years ago of the very favourable grazing conditions that would exist this autumn?

Mr. Woodburn: Conditions vary in different parts of the country. In some places the ground is too hard and in other places it is too soft. So far as I know, these variabilities have existed in every season in our history.

Retired Teachers (Pensions)

Sir David Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of retired schoolteachers who are in receipt of pensions from his Department; the average amount per annum of such pensions; and the number of full-time and part-time persons who are employed in completing the quarterly remittance forms.

Mr. Woodburn: The number of retired teachers in receipt of pensions from my Department is 8,696, and the average amount per annum of such pensions is £150. Two clerks are directly employed full-time and two comptometer workers part-time on the relative accounting work. I understand that, in addition, seven members of the staff of His Majesty's Paymaster-General are employed full-time in paying the pensions, and one full-time and one part-time in auxiliary banking services.

Sir D. Robertson: In view of the fact that his answer reveals that there is a mere bagatelle of persons engaged in paying these pensions, why did the right hon. Gentleman tell the House last week that manpower difficulties prevented these quarterly pensions being paid monthly to men who are getting only £150 per annum, and who need the money?

Mr. Woodburn: If the hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory as to the Prime Minister's statement yesterday he will see that cutting down Government manpower is one of the essential economies that we are intending to carry out.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLISH RESETTLEMENT CORPS

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his intention to wind up the Polish Resettlement Corps at the end of September has been carried out; and what is now the position of ex-members of the Corps who are still not earning their own living.

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for War to which Department he handed over responsibility for those members of the Polish Resettlement Corps who had not been settled on the disbandment of the Corps; how many members had not then been settled; and what arrangements he made for their maintenance.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): I confirm that the Polish Resettlement Corps was wound up, as a military force, on 30th September, 1949. Ex-members of the Corps are living either in private accommodation or in the hostels of the National Assistance Board. Those in private accommodation may, if in need, apply for national assistance; those in hostels who are unemployed and have no resources are provided by the National Assistance Board with free board and lodging and pocket money.
Some 2,000 men whose engagement had not expired when the Corps was wound up are receiving from the National Assistance Board ex gratia payments based on what would have been admissible for their category had the Corps not been wound up. These payments, which are being made in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates, will continue to be made to the Poles concerned until their original term of engagement would have expired, unless in the meantime they are found employment, emigrate or are repatriated.

Mr. Hynd: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "term of engagement"; was not there a definite understanding that this Corps was to be wound up on that date—which the House understood to mean that our payments to these people on the basis of their rank were to finish at that date; and are these people continuing to be paid on the basis of the rank they held when they were in Polish uniform.

Mr. Shinwell: Well, these people are not. After the term of engagement of these people with the Polish Resettlement Corps has expired they are looked after by the National Assistance Board, and I have no responsibility after that.

Mr. Bramall: Could my right hon. Friend say what is the latest date on which any of these people will still be under engagement with the Polish Resettlement Corps; and could he assure the House that none of the other people whose term of engagement has finished is being paid more than the normal National Assistance Board rate?

Mr. Shinwell: Obviously, there are bound to be some administrative tasks which have to be undertaken after the Corps has been officially wound up?

Mr. Osbert Peake: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the basis of these ex gratia payments which are being made to members of the Corps whose term of engagement, he says, has not yet expired? Cannot he really tell us the basis? Are they being paid upon a basis of need, or are they being paid upon some other basis?

Mr. Shinwell: As I have said, while the Corps was in existence I had the major responsibility now that the Corps is wound up we have transferred the obligation to the National Assistance Board. I shall endeavour to extract the information, if the House desires it, and if a Question is put down I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gallacher: Why does not the Foreign Secretary pay them? He kept them here.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: What facilities or encouragement are offered to these men to find employment here or suitable emigration abroad? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the condition of many of these men is very distressing.

Mr. Shinwell: I am only too anxious to be sympathetic in a matter of this sort. We accepted the obligation and we must see that it is carried out, but we had to wind up the Corps at some time, and that we have done. So far as we are required to look after these people, we must do so.

Mr. Austin: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the transfer of the financial liability from one Department to another is just not good enough; and will he therefore bring the scrutiny of the Treasury and the Chancellor to bear on this with a view to economy in the future?

Mr. Shinwell: As I have pointed out, the ex gratia payments are being based on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates. I must say this to hon. Members: we cannot allow any prejudice against these people to influence us in showing them what sympathy we can. We accepted the obligation and we

must see that it is properly carried through. I do not feel inclined to throw these people on the street without any assistance at all.

Mr. Hynd: Owing to the unsatisfactory reply I have been given, I give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Reforms

Major Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will publish a summary showing the reforms instituted in the Army since the end of the war affecting pay, status, conditions of service, and amenities at home and abroad.

Mr. Shinwell: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary of the more important reforms that have been instituted in the Army since the end of the war.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Would the right hon. Gentleman state those reforms which are claimed to be beneficial, or alternatively explain why those reforms have not led to the number of recruits, both officers and men, that are required?

Mr. Shinwell: Every one of the reforms I have instituted since I went to the War Office has been beneficial.

Following is the summary:

New pay, allowance and pensions codes for officers and other ranks were introduced in 1945 and 1946. In November, 1948, there were increases in marriage allowance for regular officers and other ranks, and there were increases at certain points in the pay scale of other ranks. There have been improvements in the rates and conditions of entitlement of other allowances.

The full cost of providing officers' uniform, up to the authorised scales, on first commissioning, is now met by the War Office.

Tuition and maintenance of cadets at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, are now free.

Free outward and return passages may be granted to the families of most married men serving overseas. During their stay overseas, these families have the benefit


of social services as nearly as possible equivalent to those existing in the United Kingdom. Provision has been made for flying members of the families to patients who are dangerously ill abroad.

Short service commission and engage-mend schemes have been introduced for officers and other ranks, together with more flexible regular engagements for other ranks.

Steps have been taken to give soldiers as, much personal liberty as possible during their off duty hours. A new system of detention has been introduced in which the emphasis is on rehabilitation rather than punishment.

Discharge by purchase, subject to certain limitations, has been reintroduced.

Improvements have been made in messing arrangements and in varieties in messing scales. Kitchen equipment and dining room furniture have been improved in many respects, and kitchens are being converted to gas and electricity.

Temporary accommodation has been improved and some major modernisation has been carried out. There is still a serious shortage of married quarters but the quarters that have been built are fitted with labour-saving equipment designed to reduce the need for domestic help. All post war married quarters have gardens.

Leave camps and hostels are now provided, together with large N.A.A.F.I. central clubs and officers' and sergeants' clubs overseas. Decorations and furnishings have been greatly improved.

Many improvements and amenities have been introduced into troopships and troop trains.

Sheets and pillows are now provided for other ranks. Pyjamas and improved types of battledress, head-dress, and physical training kit have been introduced. No. 1 dress has been introduced for officers.

Persons under trial by court-martial in the United Kingdom may be given aid from public funds, under conditions similar to those laid down for civilians in the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, in order that they may have professional legal assistance. In overseas commands a modified scheme of assistance has been introduced, and in some cases legal aid is provided in the event of charges before civil courts.

Labour-saving devices and equipment are being introduced into barracks and polishing of equipment and vehicles has been reduced to a minimum.

Women's Forces Abroad (Welfare)

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are made for the welfare, education and recreation of young women serving with all Forces abroad, especially in Austria.

Mr. Shinwell: Women serving with the Army abroad receive the same educational and welfare facilities as men. These include preparation for Army certificates of education and a wide range of voluntary studies, and cultural and recreational activities. In Austria, in particular, there are, in addition to unit canteens, to which women may bring their friends, Young Women's Christian Association establishments at Klagenfurt and Vienna, and a Catholic Women's League Hostel at Zermoos. Leave centres are provided for both summer and winter.
At Klagenfurt, the Crusaders' Club run by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute, has regular dances and whist-drives; there is a cinema three times a week and frequent entertainments are given by the Young Men's Christian Association in the barracks. Organised games and sports include netball, tennis, riding, skiing and fencing, and educational centres provide music and art. Recreational transport is available.

Mrs. Manning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a recent case it was stated that after they had finished their duties there was nothing for young women to do except drink or go back to their lodgings? Are these young women free to take advantage of the numerous activities he has mentioned; and are there people who will help these young women and introduce them to these activities?

Mr. Shinwell: I must say that the allegations to which my hon. Friend refers have no foundation in fact. The women members of the Forces in this theatre have access to all the facilities to which I have referred. I have recently been there and made personal inquiries, and I am satisfied that they are contented.

Professor Savory: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform us what efforts are being made to teach these young ladies the German language instead of whist-driving, and that sort of thing?

Mr. Shinwell: Facilities for acquiring a knowledge of the German and other languages are available in the educational centres.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Does access to these facilities include access to bars and access to gin?

Mr. Shinwell: So far as the unit canteens are concerned, no spirits of any kind are sold.

War Cemeteries, Germany

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for War why the Union Jack has been hauled down at 12 cemeteries in Germany where 21,500 British casualties of the last war are buried.

Mr. Shinwell: British war cemeteries in Germany have now been handed over to the Imperial War Graves Commission. The Commission, who represent all parts of the Commonwealth, do not fly flags in either 1914–18 or 1939–45 war cemeteries, save on ceremonial occasions. It would be impracticable to provide the guards that would be necessary if flags were flown, as there are well over 1,000 cemeteries in Europe alone. Furthermore, while the land in most cemeteries has been set aside in perpetuity for use as a cemetery, it remains legally the property of the nation in whose territory it is situated. The Commission cannot make an exception to the general rule solely in the case of British cemeteries in Germany.

Mr. Bramall: In view of the strong anti-British feeling that there is in Germany, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that these cemeteries will not be handed over in any way to the care of the German authorities?

Mr. Shinwell: They are in the care of the Imperial War Graves Commission.

Soldiers (Employment as Beaters)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War why soldiers of the Highland Light Infantry were employed in connection with grouse shooting between 14th and 30th September.

Mr. Shinwell: The soldiers in question were part of the Royal Guard at Balmoral and volunteered, when they were not required for military duty, to be employed as beaters with the Royal shooting party. All were fully trained soldiers and this employment in no way prejudiced their military training.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that these soldiers were paid only 5s. a day, whereas local beaters, if they had been engaged through the Employment Exchange, would have been paid much more? Is he going to continue to encourage the use of this cheap labour?

Mr. Shinwell: So far I have received no representations from the beaters' trade union.

National Service Men (Training)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for War what period of local training is given to national service men sent to Malaya after completing their 16 weeks' basic training; and whether this training is given outside possible battle areas.

Mr. Shinwell: As far as possible all reinforcements, whether National Service or Regular, arriving in the Far East are not sent on operations before they have been in the Command for a suitable period for acclimatisation and for training in the tasks they are likely to be required to perform in jungle operations. Since units are located where bandits are also located, any training involves possible interference from bandits.

Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon Gentleman say what he regards as a suitable period for acclimatisation; and has he seen the letter in "The Times," in which a parent complains that his son was sent for jungle training in a trouble spot within 24 hours of his arrival at Singapore?

Mr. Shinwell: The suitable period may vary, but it is about four weeks. With regard to the letter in "The Times," although the parent complained he also observed that his son made no complaint.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer explain why young bandsmen were thrust straight into the fighting in Malaya?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Member will give particulars of any young bandsman being thrust straight into the fighting, I will deal with the matter.

Major Beamish: Does not the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) mean "bandits" and not "bandsmen"?

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now announce a date after which no national service men will be sent to likely battle areas except in the case of supreme national emergency.

Mr. Shinwell: National Service men must continue to be sent to possible operational areas so long as the fulfilment of our overseas commitments renders this necessary.

Mr. Warbey: In the review of the use of our defence forces which is now taking place, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to uphold the principle that the purpose of National Service, whatever its future form may be, is to provide partially trained reserves for a national emergency, and that in times of peace conscripts should not be exposed to the risks of war?

Mr. Shinwell: That seems to be a matter for debate.

Manœuvres, Germany (Observers)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Press representatives and official nonmilitary observers were present at the recent military manœuvres in Germany; and what was the cost of entertaining them.

Mr. Shinwell: Forty Press representatives and nine non-military observers were present at the recent military manœuvres in Germany. The total entertainment cost for the Press representatives was £69: no State expenditure was incurred in entertaining the other non-military observers.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister seen complaints in the Press that this was overdone; and that the manœuvres were conducted more for publicity and for members of the Press than for military purposes?

Mr. Shinwell: So far as the Press representatives present were concerned, they certainly made no complaints of the kind. In regard to the manœuvres in general, they were all first-class and of great value to us.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Russian officers were present at the recent manoeuvres in West Germany; and how many British officers were present at the recent Russian manoeuvres in East Germany.

Mr. Shinwell: Four members of the Russian Military Mission were invited to the march past only at the recent manoeuvres in Western Germany and duly attended. No British officers were invited to the Russian manoeuvres in Eastern Germany.

Mr. Hughes: Did the Russian officers have an opportunity of inspecting all the secret weapons?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not know about inspection of secret weapons, but they were there and their eyes seemed to be open all the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC DECISIONS (CONSULTATION)

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the unsettled condition of the world and the consequent importance of the closest co-operation with the other States of the Commonwealth, Western Europe and the sterling area, he will take steps for the future consultation with them before financial or economic decisions are taken by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom which affect the financial or economic stability of any one of these States.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir, so far as circumstances permit, as we have done in the past.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the fact that the recent incidents produced disastrous effects both in India and Pakistan and in France, and in view of the need to reestablish confidence in sterling, will the Prime Minister make some statement that there will be real consultation in good time in the future so as not to produce these bad results?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept what the hon. Member says. He has great business experience and has heard full replies on this. I should have thought it was obvious to anyone that matters of this sort could not be discussed in wide circles beforehand.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Mr. Bossom: asked the Lord President of the Council the total estimated cost of all the permanent and temporary developments in anticipation of the 1951 Exhibition that are being undertaken, either by the Government or by local authorities, expenditure upon which has been sanctioned by his Department.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, told the House yesterday, the Government propose to reduce the estimated cost of the Festival of Britain by £1 million. This involves a complete review of the arrangements in preparation for the Festival, and the drawing up of a budget on this new basis. I will make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Bossom: Is it not a fact that the total of this development is something in the neighbourhood of £10 million, and would it not be far better at a time like this, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, to spend part of the money on schools and hospitals which are badly needed, rather than on concert halls of which we already have a lot?

Commander Noble: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the amusement centre to be set up in Battersea Park will be included in this overall investigation?

Mr. Morrison: Everything is being taken into account. In regard to the first point, that perhaps might come up in the Debate.

Major Beamish: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on his plans to build a concert hall on the south bank of the Thames; what consultations have taken place with the Arts Council and with the trustees of the Henry Wood Memorial Fund; and whether he is satisfied with the desirability of continuing with this project.

Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. The concert hall on the South Bank is the responsibility of the London County Council and is being built at their own expense. He should therefore address his inquiries to the Council.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Lord President of the Council if, in connection with the Festival of Britain, he will inaugurate a campaign, in consultation with local authorities, and enlisting the services of voluntary organisations and individuals, to beautify urban Britain by such means as the removal of industrial blight, the restoration of derelict land, and the planting of trees and flowers.

Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that it is the policy of the Festival of Britain Council to encourage local authorities to mark the occasion of the Festival of Britain by creating or inaugurating permanent improvements in local amenities of the kind envisaged by my hon. Friend. I welcome this idea, and the Festival Office is already in close touch with many local authorities on the subject. This activity will, of course, be undertaken within the framework of existing legislation, and within the limits set by the current capital investment programme. It is hoped also that many improvements, such as the removal of eyesores will be carried out as labours of love by volunteers. There are many jobs of tidying up and brightening our towns and villages, for instance, which could be undertaken by young people. In this connection I would also refer my hon. Friend to the Written Answer given by the Minister of Health to the Member for Southampton on 3rd June, 1949.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Lord President aware that many enlightened local authorities, notably the county borough of Wolverhampton, are already making great progress in this direction? Is this not a line of activity where great results could be achieved with little expenditure, and will he encourage the authorities of the Festival of Britain to pursuade backward local authorities to come up to the standards of the best?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: While the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt doing his best to restore the beauty of these


derelict places, will he consult with the Minister of Fuel and Power who, through opencast coal mining, is adding to them every day?

Mr. H. Strauss: Will the right hon. Gentleman add to these desirable objects the preservation of the beauty of Wells, now threatened by a deplorable decision of the Minister of Town and Country Planning?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Tobacco and Tea Allowances

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that aged persons, not in receipt of an old age pension, do not qualify for the concessional tobacco and extra tea allowances; and if he will amend his regulations governing these concessions so as to remove this hardship.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): So far as tobacco is concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on 18th October. So far as tea is concerned, all persons over 70 are entitled to the extra ration, whether they are in receipt of an old age pension or not.

Mr. Platts-Mills: While I have that answer in mind, does not the Chancellor appreciate that the hardships he has imposed in the last few weeks bear more heavily on old-age pensioners than anyone else, warranting him to reconsider the extension of this slight concession to these old people?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

Income Tax (Hardship Cases)

Mr. Marples: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what statutory powers he is enabled himself to deal with individual hardship cases in regard to Income Tax as distinct from arrears of Income Tax of general application.

Sir S. Cripps: As explained by my right hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) on 28th July last, the remission of tax on grounds of hardship is a

matter for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who normally exercise their own discretion in individual cases but seek the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for remissions of general application.

Mr. Marples: Why did the Chancellor, during the Debates on the Finance Bill, inform the House that he had power to remit in cases of individual hardship, whereas normally the Chancellor of the Exchequer only reviews the general application of hardship?

Sir S. Cripps: Because the Commissioners of Inland Revenue operate under my control.

Mr. Marples: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say then whether he has in fact exercised his discretion in any individual case, or whether he proposes to do so?

Sir S. Cripps: Not so far as I can recollect.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can my right hon. Friend say what class of people receive this consideration? It is certainly not the "Pay-as-you-earn" people.

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. W. Fletcher: On a point of Order. At the beginning of Question Time today, Sir, the Chairman of Ways and Means dealt with certain Business, thereby diminishing the time available for answers to Questions. Would it not be possible for such Business to be taken after Questions, and not during Question hour?

Mr. Speaker: That has never been our custom. Actually, Private Business can go on for a quarter of an hour during Question hour. Standing Orders would have to be altered. It is a matter for the House, not for me.

Mr. Driberg: Would it not be perfectly simple for the Government to do what has been suggested once or twice, to move to amend Standing Orders so that Question Time can last for one hour from the calling of Question No. 1?

Mr. Speaker: As I have pointed out before, we have been occupied with a great many supplementary questions, which means that we get through fewer main Questions.

MR. J. R. CLYNES (TRIBUTES)

The Prime Minister: I am sure that all Members of this House, and particularly older Members, will have heard with regret of the death of Mr. J. R. Clynes, who has passed away at the ripe age of 80 years after a life devoted to the service of his fellow citizens. He started life with few advantages. He went to work at the age of 10, and he was one of those who took part in the organising of the less skilled and underpaid workers towards the end of the 19th century. He did a great work in the trade union movement. He was the youngest of those members of the Labour Party who entered the House in 1906 and formed the first Labour Party here, and he was the last survivor.
He served in this House, with an interval of four years' absence, for nearly 40 years. He was the Leader of the Labour Opposition in 1921; he was Deputy Leader of the House and, in fact, officiated a great deal as Leader of the House during the Parliament of 1924. He was in that difficult office of wartime, the Ministry of Food, in the First World War, first as Parliamentary Secretary and afterwards as Minister. He has been Home Secretary and Lord Privy Seal.
Throughout his career I think it will be said of him that he was a man who never made an enemy. I think his outstanding quality was his complete unselfishness and complete loyalty. He had a very clear mind, good judgment and, without being eloquent, I think he had the gift of simple, lucid speech. But I think most of us will particularly think of him as a very lovable person. One could never meet him without realising how kind, how unassuming and how friendly he was. We have lost one who was a great personality of this House, who did great service in every kind of activity. Many of us mourn the loss of

a very dear friend, and I am sure the House will join with me in extending their full sympathy to his widow and children.

Mr. Eden: I am sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side will join in what the Prime Minister has said, particularly those of us who served in this House with the late Mr. Clynes. I know that his memory, to all of us, is one of great kindliness and friendliness. My own outstanding impression of him, as a young Member, was his modesty and complete sincerity as a Minister. As the Prime Minister has said, we all feel that we have lost a real friend and I would ask to be associated with the message to his family.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I, on behalf of my colleagues in the House, pay a short but very sincere tribute to the memory of Mr. J. R. Clynes who, from his early manhood, devoted himself so loyally and so sincerely to the welfare of the State and its people? Over 44 years have passed since I first knew "Johnny" Clynes, and that was shortly before he became Member for North-East Manchester. He was then, as he always remained, shy and diffident, but that shyness did not, and could not, hide his ability, his steadfastness and his determination. Still less did it cloud or weaken the strength of his convictions. He never for one moment forgot the people among whom he was born and brought up; he devoted himself entirely to them and the amelioration of their conditions. A sincere and courageous trade unionist, a sound Parliamentarian, a trenchant critic, a wise counsellor an effective debater, he has left a fine and enviable record of public service.

Mr. Maclay: May I, on behalf of my National Liberal colleagues, some of whom served for many years in this House with Mr. Clynes, be associated sincerely with the tributes which have been paid to Mr. Clynes' memory today?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from

the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes. 250; Noes, 105.

Division No. 257.]
AYES
[3.35 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Albu, A. H.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Attewell, H. C.
Ewart, R.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Farthing, W. J.
Mothers, Rt. Hon. George


Austin, H. Lewis
Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Monslow, W.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Follick, M.
Morley, R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Foot, M. M.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Balfour, A.
Forman, J. C.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Barstow, P. G.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Barton, C.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mort, D. L.


Battley, J. R.
Gilzean, A.
Moyle, A.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Nally, W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gooch, E. G.
Naylor, T. E.


Beswick, F.
Goodrich, H. E.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Granville, E. (Eye)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Oldfieid, W. H.


Binns, J.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Orbach, M.


Blackburn, A. R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Paget, R. T.


Blenkinsop, A.
Grierson, E.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Pannell, T. C.


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Parker, J.


Bottomley, A. G.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Parkin, B. T.


Bowen, R.
Gunter, R. J.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hale, Leslie
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. J. G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Popplewell, E.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hardman, D. R.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hardy, E. A.
Proctor, W. T.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Pryde, D. J.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Harrison, J.
Randall, H. E.


Burden, T. W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)
Rankin, J.


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Reeves, J.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Byers, Frank
Hobson, C. R.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Carmichael, James
Holman, P.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Champion, A. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Scott-Elliot, W.


Chafer, D.
Hoy, J.
Segal, Dr. S.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Sharp, Granville


Cluse, W. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cobb, F. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Shurmer, P.


Cocks, F. S.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Coldrick, W.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Collindridge, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Simmons, C. J.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Jay, D. P. T.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Cooper, G.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Skinnard, F. W.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, R. H.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Crawley, A.
Johnston, Douglas
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Cullen, Mrs.
Keenan, W.
Snow, J. W.


Daggar, G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Solley, L. J.


Daines, P.
Kinley, J.
Sorensen, R.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Stokes, R. R.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Leonard, W.
Swingler, S.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Symonds, A. L.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lipson, D. L.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Deer, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Delargy, H. J.
Logan, D. G.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Dodds, N. N.
Longden, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Donovan, T.
Lyne, A. W.
Tiffany, S.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McAdam, W.
Timmons, J.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McGhee, H. G.
Tolley, L.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mack, J. D.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Edelman, M.
McKinley, A. S.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, F.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E)




Warbey, W. N.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Watkins, T. E.
Wigg, George
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Watson, W. M.
Wilkins, W. A.
Woods, G. S.


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Wyatt, W.


Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Yates, V. F.


Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


West, D. G.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Zilliacus, K.


Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)



White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Willis, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bowden.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr P. G.
Grimston R. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baldwin, A. E.
Hollis, M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Barlow, Sir J.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Raikes, H. V.


Baxter, A. B.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Birch, Nigel
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Butcher, H. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Channon, H.
Langford-Holt, J.
Scott, Lord W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Spence, H. R.


Crawder, Capt. John E.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


De la Bère, R.
McFarlane, C. S.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Studholme, H. G.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sutcliffe, H.


Drayson, G. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmoulh)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Eccles, D. M.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marples, A. E.
Touche, G. C.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Erroll, F. J.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Mellor, Sir J.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



Glyn, Sir R.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Peart, T. F.
Major Conant and




Colonel Wheatley.

Orders of the Day — COAST PROTECTION BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), further considered.

Clause 13.—(RECOVERY OF COST OF MAINTENANCE OF WORKS NOT CONSTRUCTED UNDER WORKS SCHEMES.)

3.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move, in page 17, line 32, after "jurisdiction," to insert:
on any one or more of the following grounds, that is to say.
This is to correct a drafting omission in the Clause dealing with the recovery of maintenance works. It is to ensure that it is understood that there is a right of appeal on any one of the four grounds listed in the subsection.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 12, after "make," insert:
such one or more of the following orders as may appear to the court to be appropriate, having regard to the grounds of the complaint, that is to say."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 18, line 35, to leave out "to be carried out," and to insert:
for which provision is made by the scheme.
What we are leaving out is not quite appropriate in this place, because the scheme is not a works scheme but a scheme to meet the cost of works.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 47, at end, insert:
and the reference in subsection (1) of section eight of this Act to subsection (3) of that section shall be construed accordingly."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 15.—(ENFORCEMENT OF OBLIGATIONS TO CARRY OUT COAST PROTECTION WORK.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 20, line 5, to leave out subsection (1), and to insert:
(1) No person shall be liable, by reason only that he is subject to an obligation to which this section applies, to maintain or repair any works being either works constructed, altered or improved under a works

scheme or works for whose maintenance or repair provision is made by a scheme under section thirteen of this Act.
(2) This section applies to any obligation to carry out coast protection work to which a person would be subject by reason of tenure, custom, prescription or otherwise if this Act had not been passed.
(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, nothing in this Part of this Act shall operate to release any person from any obligation to which this section applies.
This Amendment is to meet a point raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the Committee stage, when it was pointed out that as the Bill was originally drafted it would be possible for someone, who had an obligation to carry out coastal protection works, to meet the charge under a works scheme and still have the liability for the maintenance of works under his ordinary obligation. This Amendment makes it clear that if there is an obligation of that kind on any person to carry out coast protection work, if he has made a payment of a charge under a works scheme or under a scheme under Clause 13, he shall not be held liable for maintenance works under this Clause.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: We are grateful to the Government for this Amendment, which is important. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, it meets very satisfactorily the point which we raised in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 20, line 21, at the end, to insert:
Provided that any person on whom a notice is served may serve notice of objection on the ground that the work as specified in the notice is unnecessary, or that the carrying out thereof would cause hardship to the objector, or that the obligations if any to which the objector is subject as provided in subsection (1) of this section does not extend to the work required in the notice, or that the period within which he is required to carry out the work is unreasonable, and the provisions of subsections (5) and (6) of section eight of this Act shall apply as if the notice of objection had been served under subsection (3) or (4) of that section.
As the Clause is drafted, a person concerned has no right of appeal. We feel that it is only fair that he should have it, so we are suggesting the insertion of these words in order to carry out that object.

Colonel Dower: I am not sure whether the Government intend to accept the Amendment,


but I should be glad if the Minister, in replying, would indicate what the word "otherwise" means, in subsection (1).

Mr. Blenkinsop: The Amendment refers to people who have some obligation to carry out this work. Therefore the position is very different from that which exists, for example, under a works scheme where, naturally, there ought to be a right of appeal, and where it is understood that individuals will make contributions according to the extent to which the value of their land has been improved by the works carried out.
Here we have the position in which people already have an obligation to do certain work. It seems quite reasonable that a coast protection authority should, if it considered it desirable, insist that the obligation should be carried out. Obviously there will still be a right of objection, which will exist for persons who claim that they were never required to do a particular job of work. Such a person would obviously challenge the right of the coast protection authority, by saying that his obligation did not include the particular job of work which the coast protection authority were asking him to carry out. I should say that would be the main issue which such an individual would wish to raise.
On the question mentioned in the Amendment of the time needed to carry out the obligation, we should expect the coast protection authority to grant a reasonable time. We must remember that before a coast protection authority would be able to enforce an obligation it would have to allow the person concerned a reasonable time to carry out the work. After the coast protection authority had given directions to an individual, still further time would have to elapse to give him the opportunity to carry out the work. In view of all those reasons I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment will now be able to withdraw it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 16.—(CONSENT OF COAST PROTECTION AUTHORITY REQUIRED TO CARRYING OUT OF COAST PROTECTION WORK.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 20, line 35, to leave out "this," and to insert: "the next following."
This is one of a series of Amendments put forward in an attempt to tidy up the Clauses of the Bill as they left the Committee stage. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will realise that we put down Amendments at rather short notice. Here we are trying to tidy up the wording of the Clauses. The main change carried out by the Amendments is to transfer subsection (5) from Clause 16 to Clause 17, which is a more suitable place for it. That means that we are grouping together the bodies and authorities who will be required to give notice to the coast protection authority or other authority before they carry out coast protection work. The change that this series of Amendments carries out is not so much to alter any of the wording but to tidy it up.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if you allowed us to discuss this series of Amendments together. The Amendments to Clause 16 are preliminary to the cleaning up of Clause 17, and on Clause 17 there is a point in an Amendment—which I do not think you are proposing to call—which I hope you will allow us to argue upon an earlier Government Amendment. Furthermore, perhaps if we could discuss them together it would save time.

Mr. Speaker: I am quite prepared to agree to a discussion of all this series of Amendments on this first Amendment. I think I have told the right hon. Gentleman that we could have a general discussion and that if he wished for a Division it could be called on this Amendment.

Commander Maitland: The point which arises in one of the Amendments to Clause 17 is the protection of drainage authorities and river boards. The Amendment says:
by any body or person upon whom any powers or duties relating to the protection of land have been conferred or imposed by or under any enactment other than this Act.
If those words cover the drainage authorities and similar bodies, many of our arguments will be unnecessary. It might be for the convenience of the House if the Parliamentary Secretary cared to intervene with a statement on the point.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The point is quite simple. It is true that the authorities to


which the hon. and gallant Member refers are included in that wording. The point was raised in Committee. It is only right that notice should be given to a coast protection authority of any work being done by any other authority, in the same way as a coast protection authority must give notice to any of the other authorities of work which it carries out itself. Our purpose is to ensure that reciprocal notice shall be given, and that is why these words were inserted during the Committee stage.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that during the Committee stage he argued, very forcibly and I think very plausibly, that these authorities have to work together and that it is reasonable to suppose that drainage authorities will communicate their proposals to the new coast protection authorities, and vice versa. Under the existing scheme catchment boards have been accustomed to carrying out their own schemes after they have been submitted to and approved by the Ministry of Agriculture. Those schemes were "vetted" by the engineers of the Ministry of Agriculture. I am talking here of the existing drainage authorities—the catchment boards and the drainage boards.
A new authority is now being set up, the coast protection authority. I am entirely in favour of the suggestion by the Parliamentary Secretary that catchment boards or drainage authorities ought to indicate their plans to the new coast protection authority, but we are afraid that the Clause as drafted goes rather beyond that and implies not only that the catchment board, which is already an expert body, should have to submit its proposals for approval to the Ministry of Agriculture but that it should also thereafter have to submit these proposals for approval to the coast protection authority.
I am all in favour of their communicating it—if the coast protection authority has any reasonable objection, presumably it can make the objection either to the catchment board or to the Ministry of Agriculture—but it seems an unnecessary complication to ask the catchment board to submit its schemes and

get them passed by the Ministry of Agriculture and then to submit them, presumably for approval and not through courtesy, to the coast protection authority. This seems to me to be a work of supererogation, and in order to make sure that, as we think, this unnecessary work will be omitted we have put down an Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I would point out that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would cut out the requirement that a drainage board should give notice to the coast protection authority of work it intended to do. We feel that that is quite unreasonable. We think it is right that a drainage authority should give notice of its work to the new coast protection authority and that, should there be any objection, it should come before my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Health and Agriculture. That is just as right as to ensure that when the coast protection authority carries out work the drainage authority in its turn should have the right of objection, which it can carry up to the Ministers concerned in exactly the same way.
What we are providing here is an exactly parallel provision on both sides. I cannot see that we are therefore injuring the position of the drainage authority at all. I should mention at the same time that we are making provisions, which I shall move very shortly, to ensure that the drainage authority shall be placed in the same position as the coast protection authority in being able to carry out any emergency work without the delay which would otherwise ensue. There is, therefore, no reason why the drainage authority should feel that its powers are being unduly or unreasonably restricted.

Commander Maitland: I was speaking when my right hon. Friend intervened, and I should like to continue my speech. The point is that on many occasions we shall have a very small rural district council which will be the coastal protection authority. There will probably be a perfectly ordinary piece of work which the drainage authority are to carry out—they have done so very efficiently for many years—but they now have this added obligation of submitting the scheme to the coast protection authority. There will be a period of waiting which


may create considerable delay. It may be a month's delay.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I do not think that would be true because, presumably, the notice of the work intended to be carried out would be given before the work was actually started, and, therefore, it would not necessarily cause a delay of 28 days.

Commander Maitland: It would cause a great deal of delay. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it will be a dangerous thing if a small local authority which does not know very much about the subject begins objections for which there is really no foundation. That is out of keeping with what the hon. Gentleman said during Committee stage when he pointed out very clearly that there was no obligation on a drainage authority to report, as it were, to a coast protection authority. He then indicated that he saw that it was a right and proper situation that they should not have to report.
Now on the Report stage we have this Amendment which definitely encroaches on the right of drainage authorities, making their work just a little bit more difficult and complicating things just a little more, which is just what we have all along sought to avoid in this Bill. That is why we sincerely hope that even at this late hour the hon. Gentleman will reconsider what he has said and insert the words we have suggested, which will give drainage boards and catchment boards a right to rule in their own houses.

Mr. Edward Evans: It is a great pity that the Opposition are trying to over-emphasise the differences which may arise between the catchment board and the coast protection authority. The object of the Clause is to obtain what is most vital for the Bill, co-ordination of effort. We discussed this in Committee. We knew very well that works promulgated in one area might act detrimentally to other areas along the coast, and I see nothing but a rather obscure prestige point in all this. Surely it is obvious that if there is to be co-ordinated work over an extended area, every body concerned with coast protection must act in the closest co-operation with every other body; otherwise works may be begun which may have a very

detrimental effect on other areas along the coast.
I cannot see any point whatever in raising this issue as if there was some cleavage of opinion or as if the aims and objects of the catchment boards were contrary to those of the coast protection authorities. The whole issue seems to be academic to a degree. The catchment board is entirely protected by the Amendment which the Government have put down to Clause 17 which says that in the case of an emergency it can act without reference to any other body. Nothing can prevent that. The status of the catchment board in this affair is wholly safeguarded. I hope we shall proceed with this Measure in a spirit of co-operation rather than in a spirit of antagonism and putting the claims of one body vis-a-vis the claims of another. I regard co-operation and co-ordination as essential elements in getting protection over a wide expanse of coast.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I do not know whether we are talking at cross purposes or not. During the Committee stage the Parliamentary Secretary said that the work and function of maintenance carried out by the drainage authority would not be interfered with in any way by the new coast protection authority. I may be very dense, but I find it very difficult to reconcile that statement, which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary made in absolute good faith, with the actual wording of the Clause as it emerges after the Amendments have been made. It is because we want to ensure good co-operation and at the same time do not want any delay to occur because some now coastal authority without the experience of a drainage authority proceeds to raise possibly frivolous objections, that we are anxious to see the Clause amended as we suggest. If the Government cannot accept our Amendment, we shall have to divide.

Mr. E. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the new coast protection authority. What precisely is a new coast protection authority? If he means the setting up of a new coast protection board, surely the catchment board will be represented on it. There are no new coast protection authorities. If the right hon. Gentleman means the coast protection boards, they will know precisely what is going on.

Mr. Speaker: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he wished to divide?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Then I must dispose first of the two Amendments to line 35 and to line 18.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 18, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 17.—(NOTIFICATION TO COAST PROTECTION AUTHORITY OF COAST PROTECTION WORK TO BE CARRIED OUT BY CERTAIN AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in line 32, after "work," to insert:

"(a) by a coast protection authority;
(b) by any body or person upon whom any powers or duties relating to the protection of land have been conferred or imposed by or under any enactment other than this Act;

(c) by a highway authority for the protection of a highway;

(d) by the British Transport Commission, or an Executive established by or under section five of the Transport Act, 1947, for the protection of a railway; or

(e)."

This is consequential.

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. Speaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman now move his Amendment to the proposed Amendment or will he divide against this one?

Mr. Hudson: I beg formally to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after "person," to insert:
other than a river board or other drainage authority.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 214.

Division No. 258.]
AYES
[4.11 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hollis, M. C.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Barlow, Sir J.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Baxter, A. B.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Birch, Nigel
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bowen, R.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Bower, N.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Scott, Lord W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Keeling, E. H.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Butcher, H. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Byers, Frank
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Channon, H.
Langford-Holt, J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lipson, D. L.
Spence, H. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Davidson, Viscountess
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
McFarlane, C. S.
Studholme, H. G.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Duthie, W. S.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Eccles, D. M.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Touche, G. C.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marples, A. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Erroll, F. J.
Maude, J. C.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Mellor, Sir J.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Nevan-Spence, Sir B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Glyn, Sir R.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.



Granville, E. (Eye)
Pickthorn, K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimston, R. V.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Brigadier Mackeson and


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Raikes, H. V.
Colonel Bromley-Davenport.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Pannell, T. C.


Albu, A. H.
Gallacher, W.
Pargiter, G. A.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Parkin, B. T.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Gilzean, A.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Attewell, H. C.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gooch, E. G.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Austin, H. Lewis
Goodrich, H. E.
Popplewell, E.


Awbery, S. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Balfour, A.
Grenfelt, D. R.
Pritt, D. N.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Grierson, E.
Proctor, W. T.


Barstow, P. G.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Pryde, D. J.


Barton, C.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Randall, H. E.


Battley, J. R.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Rankin, J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gunter, R. J.
Reeves, J.


Beswick, F.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hale, Leslie
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Binns, J.
Hardy, E. A.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Blackburn, A. R.
Harrison, J.
Segal, Dr. S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Sharp, Granville


Blyton, W. R.
Holman, P.
Shurmer, P.


Boardman, H.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Bowden, H. W.
Houghton, Douglas
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hoy, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Bramall, E. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Skinnard, F. W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Snow, J. W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Solley, L. J.


Burden, T. W.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jenkins, R. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Carmichael, James
Johnston, Douglas
Sparks, J. A.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Keenan, W.
Swingler, S.


Champion, A. J.
Kinley, J.
Sylveater, G. O.


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Symonds, A. L.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Cobb, F. A.
Leonard, W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Cocks, F. S.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Thurtle, Ernest


Coldrick, W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Tiffany, S.


Collick, P.
Logan, D. G.
Timmons, J.


Collindridge, F.
Longden, F.
Tolley, L.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lyne, A. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Cooper, G.
McAdam, W.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Corlett, Dr. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Mack, J. D.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Crawley, A.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Daggar, G.
McLeavy, F.
Warbey, W. N.


Daines, P.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Watkins, T. E.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Watson, W. M.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Mann, Mrs. J.
West, D. G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Deer, G.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Wigg, George


Dodds, N. N.
Monslow, W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Mort, D. L.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Moyle, A.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Nally, W.
Willis, E.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Naylor, T. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Ewart, R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Woods, G. S.


Fairhurst, F.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wyatt, W.


Fernyhough, E.
Oldfield, W. H.
Yates, V. F.


Follick, M.
Orbach, M.



Forman, J. C.
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Hannan.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the rest of the Amendments to this Clause are merely for tidying purposes, and as

the one contentious point has been removed, if there is no objection I will put the Amendments page by page.
Further Amendments made: In page 21, line 33, leave out lines 33 to 38, and insert:


(2) Work excluded from the operation of the last foregoing section by virtue only of paragraphs (b) to (e) of the last foregoing subsection shall not be carried out.
In line 40, leave out from "who," to "the," in line 41, and insert "contravenes."
In line 43, leave out from "any," to "the," in line 44, and insert "such work as aforesaid."
In page 22, line 16, leave out "Ministers," and insert:
Minister and any other Minister, being a Minister.
In line 23, after first "the," insert "appropriate."
In line 26, at end, insert "appropriate."
In line 32, at end, insert:
(7) Nothing in this section shall prevent any body or person from carrying out, without the provisions of this section having been complied with, any coast protection work which appears to them or him to be urgently necessary for the protection of any land; but where any work is so carried out, being work to which subsection (2) of this section applies, the undertakers shall, before or as soon as possible after the commencement of the work, give to the coast protection authority in whose area the work is carried out notice of the nature of the work.
In line 33, leave out "Ministers concerned," and insert "appropriate Minister."
In line 37, leave out from "paragraph," to second "Minister," in line 38, and insert:
(b) of subsection (1) of this section, means any.
In line 43, leave out "the Minister and."
In page 23, line 1, leave out "the Minister and."
In line 5, leave out "Provided that," and insert:
() For the purposes of subsection (4) of this section a Minister shall be deemed to be a Minister concerned if he is the appropriate Minister or, in a case.
In line 6, leave out from "authority," to end of line 10 and insert:
and the appropriate Minister is not the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, if he is the appropriate Minister or the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
In line 12, after "last," insert "but one."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 18.—(PROHIBITION OF EXCAVATION ETC., OF MATERIALS ON OR UNDER THE SEASHORE.)

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to move, in page 23, line 22, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where, at the time of the passing of this Act, a person is entitled to excavate or remove any materials as aforesaid by reason of any contract, it shall be lawful for such person to continue such excavation or removal until the date of the expiry of such contract.
The Clause will make it illegal to remove from the seashore any materials defined in the Bill, with the exception of seaweeds for agricultural purposes. Many businesses are now engaged in quarrying and moving sand, shingle or gravel from the shore, and the result of accepting the Clause in its present form would be to rob people in those businesses of their livelihood, because after the passing of the Bill it will be illegal to remove these things without a licence issued for that purpose by the coast protection authority.
Some of the people engaged in this business are so employed by virtue, perhaps, of contracts with the local authorities or the owners of the land concerned. The passing of the Clause as it now stands would mean the complete frustration of those contracts. The party which at present grants the permission to remove the materials from the shore will be relieved of any obligations it may have under the contract and those carrying on the business of removal will have their businesses taken from them.
I had not overlooked the question of compensation in such an eventuality but I came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to move any Amendment to safeguard or to create compensation in such an event because that would be outside the scope of the Financial Resolution. If, however, the rights of those concerned are protected by an Amendment such as that which I propose, no doubt those who wish to affect their contracts would be able to come to satisfactory terms, but at present the party which issues the authority will be relieved of all obligation without payment of any sum whatever. It seems to me very unfair that people who have been carrying on a perfectly legitimate business for years, and for the benefit, probably, of both


parties, should have their businesses brought to an end without any kind of compensation being paid to them.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would not wish that result to follow, but nowhere in the Bill is provision made for compensation in the kind of eventuality I have outlined. The Amendment, therefore, is designed to protect contracts of this nature and to ensure that they can be terminated only by the parties concerned coming to terms. Without the Amendment, contracts will be frustrated without the payment of any compensation whatever, a course which would be most unjust.

Commander Maitland: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. E. Evans: This is, apparently, an innocuous and equitable Amendment, but I ask the House to examine it a little more closely. Through the ages rights have been granted to individuals to remove from the foreshore substances which have been used for the development of agriculture, particularly in Cornwall and other places. I think it was envisaged in those days that the amount of sand or shingle to be removed would be that which an ordinary farmer could take away in a donkey cart or harrow. Since those days, however, there have been large-scale removals from the foreshore on a commercial basis, which must act detrimentally to the very objects for which the Bill is presented—namely, coast protection. Although it might seem inequitable to the hon. and learned Member—

Mr. Marlowe: I hope the hon. Member appreciates that my Amendment does not refer to ancient and prescriptive rights, but to removals at present taking place under contract, and that the amount of material which may be removed is, of course, safeguarded by the terms of the contract.

Mr. Evans: That may or may not be so, but it is quite within the jurisdiction of a local authority who can derive a certain amount of profit from selling sand or shingle from the foreshore to grant a contract for this object, without due regard to the effect on coast erosion not only in its own area, but in adjacent areas. Nobody can denude one part of the shore without affecting some other

part detrimentally, as anyone who is acquainted with coast protection is aware. Whilst we have a great deal of sympathy for those who would suffer from the violation of a contract, as the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) has mentioned, we must remember that the object of the Bill is to protect our coasts against anything which would act to their detriment. The House should have no hesitation in rejecting the Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I think that the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) has rather misunderstood the Clause. It does not provide for a general prohibition on excavation throughout the area of the coast protection authority. What it does provide is that a coast protection authority will make an order specifying a certain area of the coastline within its own area which shall be subject to this general prohibition on excavation. Clearly, the coast protection authority would only make that order where there was danger of the excavations affecting the erosion of the coast. The point raised by the hon. and learned Member is not, therefore, likely to arise in the form he suggests. He seemed to imagine that on the passing of the Bill there would be a general automatic prohibition, but that is not so.

Mr. Marlowe: It is an automatic prohibition in any area in which the coast protection authority operates.

Mr. Blenkinsop: No, it is only in the area in which the coast protection authority makes an order. It is not the area of operation of the coast protection authority—that may, and will, be much wider; it is merely in that limited area within the authority of the coast protection authority which they, by order, specify. That is the first point.
4.30 p.m.
Secondly, even within that limited area which the coast protection authority regards as a danger area, the authority can issue licences. Finally, there would be a very real danger if we were to allow existing contracts to continue even though they may be in what I would term danger areas, as they may last for long periods of years and not necessarily for a week, or fortnight, or anything of that sort. To accept the Amendment would endanger the whole purpose of the Bill


and I suggest that the position is safeguarded by ensuring that only in those areas specified by the coast protection authority in making an order would this apply.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 20.—(CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS EXPENSES OF COAST PROTECTION.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 26, line 42, to leave out "interest and sinking fund charges," and to insert: "principal and interest."
This is merely a drafting Amendment relating to county council's contributions. Where the county make a capital contribution the sum reckoned as going towards their limited liability is to be the notional loan charges on that sum and the Amendment is a more accurate description of the loan charges.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 44, after "instalments," insert:
of principal and interest combined, being a loan"—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 23.—(POWER OF COAST PROTECTION AUTHORITY TO SELL MATERIALS.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move in page 29, line 10, to leave out "three," and to insert "fourteen."
This Amendment is to meet a point raised in Committee when it was suggested that the time to be given to an owner of materials severed by coast protection work ought to be longer than three days as originally provided in the Bill. We therefore propose to increase the time to 14 days.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: We are much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Government for the way in which they have met us.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24.—(PROVISIONS AS TO ARBITRATIONS.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 29, line 18, to leave out from "to," to the first "Rules," in line 20, and to insert "the Lands Tribunal.
(2)"
This Amendment and the four following are of a drafting nature and

have been caused by the passing of the Lands Tribunal Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 29, line 21, leave out "that Act," and insert:
the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.

In line 22, leave out from "acquisition)," to "shall," in line 24.

In line 24, leave out "this subsection but," and insert:
any such arbitration.
(3) For the purposes of any such arbitration section five of the said Act of 1919 (which relates to costs) shall have effect.

In line 25, leave out "in the said section five."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, in page 29, line 28, to leave out subsection (2), and to insert:
(4) This section shall apply to Scotland with the substitution for the words 'the Lands Tribunal' in subsection (1) thereof of the words 'the Lands Tribunal for Scotland':
Provided that until sections one to three of the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949, come into force as respects Scotland the expression the Lands Tribunal for Scotland' shall be construed as meaning an official arbiter appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and the following provisions of the said Act of 1919, that is to say, section three thereof (which relates to procedure), section five thereof (which relates to costs) as modified by sections five and ten of the said Act of 1949, but with the substitution for references to the acquiring authority of references to the coast protection authority, and section six thereof (which relates to the statement of special cases) as modified by section ten of the said Act of 1949, shall apply for the purposes of the arbitration.
This Amendment is consequential on the Amendments just made, except that we have a long proviso in the application of the Clause to Scotland which is rendered necessary as it is not expected that there will be sufficient work to justify the establishment of a full-scale lands tribunal for Scotland for some time, and for such time we wish to have these matters settled by the official arbiter.

Mr. McKie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but to a layman like myself his quite simple words do not appear to make this somewhat


complicated Amendment any more easy to understand. I hope that those who concern themselves with administering this new subsection will find their task easier than I have found the task of understanding what the new subsection means and my difficulty in listening to the Joint Under-Secretary and comprehending what he was trying to say. This matter teems with references, and all of us on both sides of the House deplore legislation by reference. If we wanted a prize product of that kind of thing, we could not have a better example than that before us.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25.—(POWERS OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION.)

Commander Maitland: I beg to move, in page 30, line 14, to leave out: "used for residential purposes."
The Bill as drafted makes it essential that 24 hours' notice shall be given by the coast protection authority before entering on residential land. We feel that the matter should be taken a little further and if the authority are to enter on any land they should give at least 24 hours' notice. It is for the purpose of strengthening this clause that the Amendment is put forward. Probably there will be no difficulty about the matter; a call might be made on the telephone, and there may be many cases where 24 hours' notice would be very useful and convenient to the occupier.

Colonel Dower: I beg to second the Amendment.
During the whole consideration of this Bill there has been extremely friendly co-operation between Members on both sides of the House, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and I believe that we have shown that this is not a controversial Measure. But I feel very strongly on this point. More and more the rights of the individual to his private seclusion are being taken away; more and more ministries are able to make forcible entry to other people's land, and although in these days when there is plenty of planning it is reasonable that that should be so under certain circumstances, I cannot see why 24 hours' notice should not be granted. What I want to know is—I do not know whether the hon. Member is

waving at me, I am not a taxi cab. If he wishes me to give way I shall be delighted to do so.

Mr. E. Evans: May I not wave my Order Paper?

Colonel Dower: The hon. Member was waving it in my direction.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and gallant Member knows that there is a demand for a speed up in production.

Colonel Dower: If the hon. Member is telling me to get on with it, I shall take as long as Mr. Deputy-Speaker allows me. Twenty-four hours' notice has to be given in the case of forcible entry on to residential land. I presume that by residential land is meant land where people are living and sleeping. I can think of a great many cases which would not come under that definition but in respect of which it would be extremely inconvenient for forcible entry to be made without 24 hours' notice having been given. I presume that residential land includes buildings. What about doctors' consulting rooms, where they do not live or sleep? What about dentists' premises? What about land upon which business is being conducted? I know of some land near the coast where an attempt is being made to produce films and where those concerned are doing their best to do the very thing which hon. Members desire, which is to reduce imports and produce our own goods.
I cannot see why 24 hours' notice should not be given to cover all cases. The limitation in the Bill is extremely unreasonable. I ask the Minister what' is to happen on a Saturday afternoon or a Sunday. Will his Department in that case enter forcibly without giving any kind of notice, because at that period there will be no one on such premises as I have described—business premises where no one is living. Occupants might go there on a Monday morning and find that their premises have been ransacked.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that we should wait until a storm has washed away that piece of land before we can go and make an examination?

Colonel Dower: No, I do not suggest that. Surely after this Bill has been


passed such situations are not likely to arise. There will be coast protection authorities who will be watching. I suggest that some sort of notice should be given before land is invaded, and that this Clause should not give the protection of 24 hours' notice only to land which is being used for residential purposes.

Mr. E. Evans: Has the hon. and gallant Member seen the illustrations in the papers of the storms which occurred over the week-end? Does he suggest that a coast protection authority ought to wait for 24 hours before being able to take remedial steps such as putting sandbags in position? The whole of the hon. and gallant Member's proposition is fantastic. Coast erosion might take place in the time which he seeks to insist shall elapse before there can be a right of entry.

Colonel Dower: I do not see a Law Officer here, and on these occasions we should appreciate the presence of one. I am sure that under some other provisions entry could take place in an emergency of that kind.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I wish to support this Amendment. The arguments which the Parliamentary Secretary put forward in an intervention a moment ago, and which the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans) put forward, that of urgency, might have some validity if the Bill as it stands did not create an exception in the case of premises used for residential purposes. It is clear that an authorised person has to wait 24 hours before going on to land used for residential purposes. Why not provide for the same notice to be given in respect of land which is not used for residential purposes? It is admitted that there may be cases in which 24 hours' notice should be given.
I have looked at the definition Clause and it contains no definition of what is meant by "land used for residential purposes." I suppose that the garden of a house would be land used for residential purposes. There are many stretches of coast which consist of land belonging to or forming part of a residential house. In such cases 24 hours' notice would haws to be given. There seems to be no reason in logic why 24 hours' notice should not be given in the case of other land also.
It is to be noted that this power of entry upon land can be quite a substantial one. The person making the entry is empowered to:
authorise the entry or passage of such persons, vehicles, plant and materials as may be necessary, ….
That may well mean that he may go on to the land taking with him bulldozers or tractors and any other kind of materials which he may consider necessary for the carrying out of coast protection work. That may cause substantial damage to the land, and the occupant of the land ought to be given notice in order to be able to make arrangements so as to protect his property to the greatest possible extent.
Throughout modern legislation there has been an increasing tendency to give this power of entry on to other people's property, a tendency which is only to be expected of a Government which has no respect for property. In a case such as this where the authorised person will be able to force his way on to a person's land, possibly taking with him some machinery, with the risk of causing considerable damage, the occupant should be given at least 24 hours' notice so that he may make the best arrangements he can for the protection of his land.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Hon. Members are making a lot of this matter. This provision is quite common form. I see that the hon. and gallant Member for Horn-castle (Commander Maitland) is smiling, which perhaps means that he realises that.

Commander Maitland: I always smile but it does not mean that I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Blenkinsop: This is a perfectly reasonable provision. It is quite true that a distinction is made between residential premises and those which are not. That has been done for the very good reason that we naturally wish to give the private householder some greater opportunity to look after his premises and make any personal arrangements that may be necessary, which would not be appropriate in any other case.
Surely we are concerned in this matter with a question of urgency and with the need that arises for the authority to be able to get on to the scene of danger,


the scene of the incident—in this case the scene of the erosion—without any delay? It may well be that a delay of 24 hours would be unreasonable and unconscionable. It would, I am sure, affect the working of the coast protection authority. The exemption made here in respect of residential premises is reasonable because of the personal factors involved in the case of such premises.

Mr. Marlowe: Has the Parliamentary Secretary any idea what he means by "residential premises"? If a person has a caravan placed in a field adjoining the sea is that field land used for residential purposes?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I understand this is common form in other Measures. If hon. Members opposite have nothing better to discuss than this proposal and if they are trying to blow it out into an issue of great significance and importance they really must reconsider the matter. I suggest that such a provision in the Bill would limit quite unduly the operations of a coast protection authority, and I do not propose to accept the Amendment.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken up such an attitude, because this Amendment is entirely reasonable. The hon. Gentleman based his argument on the necessity of a coast protection authority official being able to go, without 24 hours' notice, on to land to put right a case of urgency. We should all have considerable sympathy with that, but unfortunately for the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary there is nothing about that in the Bill. If the Bill read that in a case of emergency the coast protection authority official should have that right, I do not think any of us would object. But, in fact, the Bill says that at any time the official shall be able to go on to a person's land without any notice at all, except in the case of a residence. Again, I think, if it was merely the case of a single official going on to some agricultural land there would be less to be said for our Amendment. But if the Parliamentary Secretary will take the trouble to look at the rest of the Clause he will see that it specifically states that this power of entry includes all forms of entry:
Any power of entry conferred by paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of this section

shall include power to authorise the entry or passage of such persons, vehicles, plant and materials as may be necessary, and to authorise the carrying out of work for facilitating their passage.
There is nothing in that to show that this is an entry in a case of emergency. It is to be done at any time.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that this was common form. I think that be has been misinformed. If I am correctly informed, the Agriculture Act of 1947, which went through this House recently, laid down that an official of the War Agricultural Committee intending to go on to a man's land—unlike what happened during the war—must in future give 24 hours' notice. Such an official would be going there merely to carry out an inspection for the county agricultural committee. If the House decided that he should give 24 hours' notice I see no reason why a similar limitation of right should not be laid upon an official of the coast protection authority. There is no reason why that should not be.
The Bill does not merely mention a case of emergency where obviously we should have no objection, and there is no inherent reason at all why, if a person is going on to a man's land and proposes to take vehicles on to his land, there should not be 24 hours' notice given. We are supposed to be at peace. It is supposed to be four years since the end of the war; and here is the Parliamentary Secretary refusing to consider a concession. It is a refusal which might be reasonable in time of war, but is wholly unreasonable in time of peace.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I would urge this point upon the Parliamentary Secretary, because we have had all this out before. As my right hon. Friend said, the Government accepted the principle that so far as agricultural land and land dealt with under the Agriculture Acts was concerned, people must not have the indiscriminate right to go trotting over land without notice to the farmer. It is a matter of principle and a very important principle indeed. Nothing infuriates farmers more than having people going indiscriminately over their land. Farmers do not know what damage might be done, what gates will be left open and what stock may get out. If they do catch someone doing it, then that person might say, "It was the chap from the local authority."
In this particular case it is of great importance to ensure harmonious working between people who are doing their best to function on the land and the people who are doing their best to function on behalf of various authorities. Unless we do have a certain amount of generosity of approach between people of that kind we shall get into trouble. That principle is one which has been accepted wholeheartedly by the Government in connection with the Agriculture Acts, and it will confuse the issue very much if contrary principles are to be adopted; particularly in regard to agricultural land in connection with this Bill.
Substantially speaking, apart from requisitioned land, when residential coast-side property is excluded, we have only three classes of property with which to deal. One is the agricultural land, another is the seaside holiday camp land, and the third will be the foreshore, esplanade and areas of that kind belonging to the local authority. So far as local authorities are concerned, suppose the Coast Protection Board goes on to their land without any notice at all and without any warning? It may well lead to a very great deal of inconvenience and trouble. Supposing the local authority have not had occasion to anticipate this avalanche of people with vehicles? They may have had no opportunity to prepare for them or to clear the public off the foreshore or wherever it may be that work is to be done.

Mr. E. Evans: Would not the local authority owning the foreshore be the coast protection authority?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Not necessarily. It is quite possible—

Mr. Evans: Then may I ask who would be?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Well, the hon. Member will find that if he peruses the Bill.

Mr. Evans: I have looked at it.

Mr. Joyason-Hicks: It is by no means necessary that the local authority which has a foreshore of its own will be the coast protection authority covering that particular bit of the foreshore.
With regard to camping sites, that is a small but very important issue. I ask

the hon. Gentleman to consider what would happen if, without notice at all, there was a sudden invasion of a camping site with vehicles and everything necessary to do the work. It would upset everybody, create friction and cause a lack of co-operation between those who should be co-operating. We are endeavouring to ensure that this Bill shall be put into a workable form and made to work; which means co-operation between all parties. One way in which we shall be certain to eliminate that co-operation is by ensuring that one person has a right to do something on somebody else's land without the knowledge of the owner. There is no necessity for it at all.
If there is this occasional question of urgency it will be the frontager, the owner, who will telephone the coast protection authority and ask them to come on the land. It will not be the authority which will be held up. Provided there is a safeguard, what landowner, whether it be of agricultural land or anything else, would raise an objection in times of emergency if in fact the local authority does flaunt the Act, and telephones to say, "Please may we come without 24 hours' notice, because your property is in peril"? Obviously the landowner will say, "Please do, I waive the provisions of the Act."

5.0 p.m.

Commander Maitland: When I proposed this Amendment I thought that these points would be appreciated by the Minister. It is plain from his reply that he has not appreciated all the points which have been put forward. I rise simply to ask if even now at this late stage—as he has shown himself comparatively reasonable, when allowed to be reasonable, in Committee—he will reconsider this matter. We attach a great deal of importance to this Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: With the permission of the House, I think I should say a few words. Hon. Members opposite are forgetting that in the ordinary case of work being carried out on the coast there will have been a great deal of notice because, in many cases, it will be carried out under a works scheme or some other scheme of that nature. It is a fact that this provision will apply almost wholly, if not wholly, to cases of emergency such as


those which I have suggested. To say that it is restricted to cases of emergency would be untrue but in fact it will largely be so.
There is nothing in this Measure which will prevent the authority giving notice. One hon. Member seemed to suggest that this Bill prevented notice being given. Of course, that is untrue. In the normal case I am sure that notice would be given. I still insist that these authorities are reasonable bodies of people and they do not wish to cause unnecessary inconvenience. However, what we must try to safeguard is the right of access in those cases which we are thinking about where there is a need for immediate access without notice. For that reason, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: With the leave of the House, I should like to say that if the Parliamentary Secretary really believes the case he has made out then he ought to meet us by saying, "Save in cases of emergency." That would meet our case entirely. If hon. Members take the trouble to read the whole of this Clause they will see that the Government have got themselves into the most fantastic and unreal position.
Let us take the case of an official of an authority who goes to a man's land without giving 24 hours' notice and says, "I wish to enter your land," or "I am going to enter your land." Suppose the landowner refuses to admit him. What happens? The man cannot go on to the land because he cannot get forcible entry. The landowner is subject to a prosecution for wilful obstruction. He comes under subsection (8) and becomes liable to a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. But the official cannot get access to the land by forcible entry. That is

the fantastic provision in this Bill, because earlier it is stated:
If it is shown to the satisfaction of a justice of the peace, or in Scotland a justice of the peace or the sheriff, on sworn information in writing—
(a) that admission to any land which any person is entitled to enter …

that is the official—
… has been refused to that person or …

And then it goes on:
(b) that there is reasonable ground for entry on the land for the purpose for which entry is required,
the justice or sheriff may by warrant under his hand authorise that person to enter on the land, if need be by force.

Look at the proviso:
Provided that such a warrant shall not be issued, unless the justice or sheriff is satisfied … that notice of the intention to apply for a warrant has been given to the occupier …

Therefore, in fact, he has to give him notice in the end. If the Parliamentary Secretary will insert the word "emergency" I shall be quite happy. If it is not an emergency one cannot get forcible entry without giving notice. It is fantastic.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, why does he press for the insertion of these words?

Mr. Hudson: Because I venture to suggest that it is not in accordance with the dignity of this House to pass an Act which is sheer rubbish.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 218 Noes, 113.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 31, line 2, to leave out "of entry or inspection conferred by," and insert, "conferred by or under."
This is a drafting Amendment necessitated because the right of entry may be conferred not only by the Clause itself but by a justice of the peace under the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48.—(SAVINGS.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: rose—

Mr. R. S. Hudson: On a point of Order. Mr. Speaker has said that he was in some doubt as to whether to call the Amendment in page 45, line 17, but that in any case he would give us an opportunity of voting on it, having regard to the discussion which had taken place earlier. I hope that we may be able to divide on this Amendment because we attach considerable importance to the principle.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): Judging by Mr. Speaker's Order Paper, the Amendment is not selected. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to move it so that the House may divide on it right away?

Mr. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 45, line 17, to leave out from "consents," to the end of line 20.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 110.

Division No. 259.]
AYES
[5.5 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Bing, G. H. C.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)


Albu, A. H.
Binns, J.
Carmichael, James


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Blackburn, A. R.
Champion, A. J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Blenkinsop, A.
Chater, D.


Attewell, H. C.
Blyton, W. R.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Austin, H. Lewis
Boardman, H.
Cluse, W. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Bottomley, A. G.
Cobb, F. A.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Bowden, H. W.
Cocks, F. S.


Balfour, A.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Collick, P.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Collindridge, F.


Barstow, P. G.
Bramall, E. A.
Colman, Miss G. M.


Barton, C.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Corlett, Dr. J.


Battley, J. R.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cove, W. G.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Crawley, A.


Beswick, F.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Burden, T. W.
Cullen, Mrs.




Daggar, G.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Daines, P.
Keenan, W.
Segal, Dr. S.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sharp, Granville


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Harold (Leak)
Kinley, J.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Davies, R. J. (Westhougnton)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Simmons, C. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Deer, G.
Leonard, W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Dodds, N. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lyne, A. W.
Snow, J. W.


Dumpleton, C. W.
McAdam, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mack, J. D.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, John {Ogmore)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Swingler, S.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McLeavy, F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Ewart, R.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Symonds, A. L.


Fairhurst, F.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Farthing, W. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Follick, M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Forman, J. C.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Tiffany, S.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Tolley, L.


Gallacher, W.
Mellish, R. J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mikardo, Ian
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Gilzean, A.
Monslow, W.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Glaville, J. E. (Consett)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Viant, S. P.


Gooch, E. G.
Morley, R.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Goodrich, H. E.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mort, D. L.
Warbey, W. N.


Grenfell, D. R.
Murray, J. D.
Watkins, T. E.


Grierson, E.
Nally, W.
Watson, W. M.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Naylor, T. E.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Gunter, R. J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Oldfield, W. H.
West, D. G.


Hale, Leslie
Paget, R. T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Pannell, T. C.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Pargiter, G. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hardy, E. A.
Parker, J.
Wigg, George


Harrison, J.
Parkin, B. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Holman, P.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Horabin, T. L.
Pearson, A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Houghton, Douglas
Popplewell, E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hoy, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Willis, E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Proctor, W. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pryde, D. J.
Woods, G. S.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Randall, H. E.
Wyatt, W.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Rankin, J.
Yates, V. F.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reeves, J.



Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Johnston, Douglas
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Richard Adams.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdt P. G.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
De la Bère, R.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Jennings, R.


Astor, Hon. M.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Drayson, G. B.
Keeling, E. H.


Barlow, Sir J.
Drewe, C.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Baxter, A. B.
Duthie, W. S.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Eccles, D. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bennett, Sir P.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Birch, Nigel
Erroll, F. J.
Lipson, D. L.


Bowen, R.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bower, N.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Potlok)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Glyn, Sir R.
McCallum, Maj. D.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Granville, E. (Eye)
McFarlane, C. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grimston, R. V.
Mackeson, Brig, H. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Head, Brig. A. H.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Byers, Frank
Hollis, M. C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Channon, H.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Hope, Lord J.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Maude, J. C.







Mellor, Sir J.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Ropner, Col. L.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Sanderson, Sir F.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Touche, G. C.


Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Scott, Lord W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Shephard, S. (Newark)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Paake, Rt. Hon. O.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Pato, Brig. C. H. M.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Pickthorn, K.
Smithers, Sir W.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Spence, H. R.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Raikes, H. V.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)



Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Sutcliffe, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

Division No. 260.]
AYES
[5.32 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Glanville, J. E. (Corsett)
Pargiter, G. A.


Albu, A. H.
Gooch, E. G.
Parker, J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Parkin, B. T.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Grenfell, D. R.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Attewell, H. C.
Grey, C. F.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Austin, H. Lewis
Grierson, E.
Pearson, A.


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Popplewell, E.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Balfour, A.
Gunter, R. J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hale, Leslie
Proctor, W. T.


Barstow, P. G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Pryde, D. J.


Barton, C.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Randall, H. E.


Battley, J. R.
Hardy, E. A.
Rankin, J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Harrison, J.
Reeves, J.


Beswick, F.
Holman, P.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Bing, G. H. C.
Horabin, T. L.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Binns, J.
Houghton, Douglas
Segal, Dr. S.


Blackburn, A. R.
Hoy, J.
Sharp, Granville


Blenkinsop, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Shurmer, P.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Boltomley, A. G.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Bowden, H. W.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Simmons, C. J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Skinnard, F. W.


Bramall, E. A.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Jay, D. P. T.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Johnston, Douglas
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Snow, J. W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Keenan, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
King, E. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Carmichael, James
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Swingler, S.


Champion, A. J.
Kinley, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Symonds, A. L.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cobb, F. A.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Cocks, F. S.
Leonard, W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Callick, P.
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Collindridge, F.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Tiffany, S.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Timmons, J.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Tolley, L.


Cove, W. G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Crawley, A.
Logan, D. G.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lyne, A. W.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Cullen, Mrs.
McAdam, W.
Viant, S. P.


Daggar, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Daines, P.
Mack, J. D.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Warbey, W. N.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Watkins, T. E.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
McKinlay, A. S.
Watson, W. M.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McLeavy, F.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)



Delargy, H. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Diamond, J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Dodds, N. N.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
West, D. G.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mellish, R. J.
Wigg, George


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mikardo, Ian
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Monslow, W.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Ewart, R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Fairhurst, F.
Morley, R.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Farthing, W. J.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mort, D. L.
Willis, E.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Moyle, A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Follick, M.
Murray, J. D.
Woods, G. S.


Forman, J. C.
Nally, W.
Wyatt, W.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Yates, V. F.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Neal, H. (Claycross)



Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gallacher, W.
Oldfield, W. H.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Richard Adams.


Gilzean, A.
Pannell, T. C.








NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hollis, M. C.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Raikes, H. V.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Baldwin, A. E.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Renton, D.


Barlow, Sir J.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Baxter, A. B.
Jennings, R.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bennett, Sir P.
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Birch, Nigel
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bowen, R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Bower, N.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Lipson, D. L.
Smithers, Sir W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spence, H. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Low, A. R. W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Byers, Frank
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Challen, C.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Channon, H.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Sutcliffe, H.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
McFarlane, C. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Davidson, Viscountess
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


De la Bère, R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Drayson, G. B.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Drewe, C.
Maude, J. C.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mellor, Sir J.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Duthie, W. S.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fyfe Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Nicholson, G.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Odey, G. W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Glyn, Sir R.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.



Granville, E. (Eye)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K.
Major Conant and Mr. Studholme.


Head, Brig. A. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 45, line 20, at the end, to insert:
and is to be carried out in the area of that coast protection board.
This Amendment is designed to meet the case put forward by right hon. and hon. Members opposite on behalf of the drainage authorities, and its effect is that the coast protection board cannot interfere in any way with work outside its area, work maintained by a drainage authority, even if that drainage authority is represented on the board, unless the drainage authority itself consents. In fact, it goes rather further than hon. Members opposite originally asked. In these specific circumstances—work outside the area of the coast protection board—it provides a complete veto on the part of the drainage authority.

Commander Maitland: It is true that this goes some way to meet the point we have tried to make all along, but we are not by any manner of means satisfied that it really fulfils those promises which have so often been given during the course of the Bill that the drainage authorities

should be the absolute kings in their own castles. On the other hand, I think it has gone quite a long way to meet the points we have put forward and, as far as that is concerned, we are grateful, although we think it would have been much better if the hon. Gentleman had gone the whole way to meet us.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27.—(ACQUISITION BY COAST PROTECTION AUTHORITY OF RIGHT OF PASSAGE FOR FACILITATING COAST PROTECTION WORK.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 32, line 4, to leave out "and."
This Amendment, and the next one in line 5, are necessitated by the passing of the Lands Tribunal Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 32, line 5, after "1946," insert "and the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949."

5.15 p.m.

Commander Maitland: I beg to move, in page 32, line 23, to leave out from "out," to the end of line 25.
The words which it is proposed to delete give a right of compulsory purchase to a coastal protection authority to be used in order to acquire the passage which they desire to have so as to gain access to their works, or for any other purpose which may seem good to them. The arrangements made in the earlier part of the Bill in regard to compulsory purchase seem to be reasonable, and we could not object to them, because special arrangements have been made in the earlier part of the Bill to cover any difficulties which the authority might have.
Under subsection (2) of this Clause, the right is given to carry on work for

facilitating passage, and the authority can make roads or do anything that is necessary in order to get to their works. In those circumstances, it seems to us that the authorities have all the powers which they could possibly need in order to exercise their right to make a proper passage to their work, and we therefore cannot see why the powers of compulsory purchase should be used in such a case.

Colonel Dower: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think my hon. and gallant Friend has put forward a point of substance here. He has explained that the local authorities have all the powers they require both for right of passage and also for carrying out work. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to appreciate this point. Let us suppose that this land is to be constantly worked upon, so that, in fact, the local authority wish to acquire it. I am perfectly sure that in that case they would be able to acquire it by agreement. They have all the power which they would like and they would be able to take that land, quite rightly and properly, whenever they wanted it. I am convinced that if such acquisition were desirable, the authority would in fact be able to acquire the land by agreement.
What I cannot help feeling is that this power of compulsory acquisition, although it might not be used at all if the landowners were not holding them up in any way, might be used in a rather harsh way when it came to the question of compensation. The coast protection authority would be able to say to the owner "Now, we will buy this land from you by agreement, and, if you do not like the price offered, then we will compel you to sell." I should like the Minister to make it perfectly clear that already


the coast protection authority can do whatever they want on that land and to say that it is not necessary to have this additional power of compulsory acquisition.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I think the simple answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) is that the reserve power of compulsory purchase is very often a very useful factor. It is not necessarily the case that the authority want to use it, but the fact that the power is there very often makes much simpler and much more reasonable the actual purchase negotiations, as is perfectly well known. It is only reasonable because, after all, the coast protection authority in this case would only be allowed to construct any coast protection works if, in the first place, it was really in the public interest to do so. They ought obviously to be allowed to purchase land for purposes of convenient access to it.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself agrees that that power should be granted, but he asks, "Why should the compulsory power be granted?" My right hon. Friend the Minister would, of course, ensure, as he does in other cases where compulsory powers exist, that the power is not used unconscionably or unreasonably in any way; and, as I have said, without this power it would be very much more difficult to get reasonable agreements made. It is not a fact, I repeat, that we wish continuously to use compulsory powers, but it is desirable in cases of this sort where the public interest is involved that the compulsory power should be granted.

Colonel Dower: Would the Parliamentary Secretary say why, if he can do anything he wishes upon that land as far as coast protection is concerned, he finds it necessary compulsorily to purchase it? I should imagine that the owner of the land would be only too pleased to sell.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is obvious that the authority might very well be involved in paying higher prices if it had not compulsorily power at its back, and surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not suggesting that the authority should be involved in unnecessary expense.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 28.—(POWER OF MINISTER TO FACILITATE COAST PROTECTION WORK.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 33, line 8, at the end, to insert:
or across which the rights in question are required to be exercised.
This Amendment and the next two Amendments are purely drafting, because this Clause now enables private persons to be given similar rights of passage.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 33, line 14, after "entered," insert:
or across which the said rights are required to be exercised.

In page 33, line 30, after "land," insert:
or exercise the said rights."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 31.—(REPEAL OR AMENDMENT OF LOCAL ACTS.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 36, line 24, to leave out from "section," to "shall," in line 25.
This Amendment would make Clause 31 (3) read:
Any order under this section shall be subject to special Parliamentary procedure.
The effect of the Amendment is to delete the words:
made after the expiration of two years from the passing of this Act.
There is really no rhyme or reason at all why there should be this two years' delay. We consider it vitally essential, for reasons very well known, because we have argued, generally with success, on many similar enactments and in many similar cases, that orders of importance made for purposes such as this should come before Parliament. The gist of such orders is going to be to alter, amend, vary or affect other Parliamentary enactments, and, therefore, it is vitally important that when such Parliamentary enactments are being varied by Ministerial decree, Parliament should have an opportunity of supervising what is being done. We see no reason whatever why there should be the two years' lag in which the Minister would have a free rein with regard to previous legislation. While I do not for a moment suggest that he would abuse the privilege being put upon him constitutionally, I do feel that, from the point of view of propriety, as well as from the practical point of view,


these matters should be laid before Parliament ab initio, and not merely at the expiration of two years.

Commander Maitland: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I think that this Amendment has been put down under some misunderstanding because while it is true that the special Parliamentary procedure will apply automatically after the expiry of two years, it will also apply in the interim if the bodies concerned object. Perhaps the wording is not very clear, but under the proviso contained in subsection (2), read in conjunction with Part II of the Schedule, it will be seen that, in fact, that is the provision made. I think we have fully covered the point which the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise. I can assure him that not only will there be the use of special Parliamentary procedure after the expiry of the two years, but also within the period of the two years if objection is raised by one of the statutory bodies concerned.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: On the strength of the hon. Gentleman's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42.—(ACCOUNTS OF COUNCILS OF BOROUGHS.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 42, line 17, to leave out from "The," to "shall," in line 19, and to insert:
following authorities, that is to say—

(a) the council of every borough in England or Wales having functions under this Act,
(b) every coast protection board, and
(c) every joint committee appointed under subsection (1) of section three of this Act, not being a committee in whose case all the appointing authorities are authorities in Scotland."

This Amendment, the next one on the Order Paper in page 42, line 20, and that to leave out Clause 43 are "tidying-up" Amendments. Amendments were put down in Committee at a rather late stage, and the effect of the last Amendment is to make the accounts of the joint committee subject to district audit in the same way as are the accounts of the coast protection authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 20, leave out "such functions," and insert:
functions under this Act."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 43.—(ACCOUNTS OF JOINT COMMITTEES.)

Amendment made: In page 42, line 32, leave out Clause 43.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 46.—(SERVICE OF NOTICES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS.)

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 44, line 3, after "by," to insert "or under."
Perhaps at the same time we could conveniently take the Amendment in page 44, line 5.
These are drafting Amendments needed by the introduction on the Committee stage of Clause 27 relating to the acquisition of right of passage for facilitating coast protection work.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 44, line 5, at end, insert:
or to the creation of such rights as are mentioned in section twenty-seven of this Act."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Clause 50.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendment made: In page 45, line 41, at the end, insert:
'coast protection charge' has the meaning assigned to it by section six of this Act.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 45, line 45, at the end, insert:
and includes the sowing or planting of vegetation for the said purpose.
This is to make clear that coast protection work includes the sowing or planting of marram grass, pine trees or anything else that may be of assistance in stabilising beach defences. Again, it is a matter which was raised in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule.—(PROCEDURE FOR MAKING ORDERS AND PROVISIONS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF ORDERS.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 49, line 38, to leave out lines 38 and 39, and to insert:
the last foregoing paragraph shall have effect as if it required the objection to be considered, and authorised a local inquiry to be promoted, by the Ministers concerned instead of by the Minister.
This is a drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that where a draft order for the setting up of a joint board leaves out a drainage authority, for instance, and that omission is the ground of the objection to the draft Order made by the drainage authority, then both Ministers must hear the objection.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 51, line 22, to leave out from "Schedule," to the end of line 24, and to insert:
the last foregoing paragraph shall have effect as if it required the objection to be considered, and authorised a local inquiry to be promoted, by the Minister and the Minister of Transport, instead of by the Minister;
This Amendment is similar to the one which we have just made.

Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS RESTRICTING EXCAVATION OF MATERIALS FROM THE SEASHORE.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 53, line 22, after "area," to insert or lying to seaward therefrom."
This is an Amendment to Part II of the Second Schedule which deals with the making of an interim order preventing or controlling the removal of beach materials in an emergency. Clearly, it should be possible for such orders, like the more normal orders under Clause 18, to apply to areas lying to seaward of the local authority's area.

Amendment agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(WATERS EXCLUDED FOR PURPOSES OF DEFINITIONS OF "SEA" AND "SEASHORE.")

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 55, line 16, to leave out from "drawn," to the end of line 17, and to insert:
across The Narrows from Lloyd's Hailing Station to the Commissioners' Staiths.

This Amendment was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Colman), and I gave an assurance that we would consider it and put it down ourselves if we found ourselves in agreement with it. It is in precisely the same form as that in which it was moved in Committee.

Miss Colman: I should like to thank my hon. Friend for putting the Amendment down. It will be of great assistance to the borough of Tynemouth.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 59, line 35, to leave out subparagraph (2).
This sub-paragraph is unnecessary as all the regulations will be statutory instruments by virtue of Clause 45.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read [King's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I should like to say a few words after having listened to the miserable rearguard action which has been fought by the landed interests against this very important Measure. In Clause 14 I read:
A coast protection authority may be authorised by the Minister to acquire by compulsory purchase any land which they are authorised by section four of this Act to acquire …
I do not like this compulsory purchase. When we turn to Clause 4 we find:
Subject to the following provisions of this Act, a coast protection authority shall have power to carry out such coast protection work, whether within or outside their area, as may appear to them to be necessary or expedient for the protection of any land in their area.
The protection of the land is a very desirable work—not the land that should belong to a few individuals but the land that should belong to the people. It is a very important and necessary work, and I should be very much better pleased if the Minister could so arrange that between now and the Bill going to


another place—[HON. MEMBERS: "It has been there already."] It comes from there? Well, we can send it back; they have been sending Bills back to us and we can reverse the process and send one back to them.
I should like the Minister to have the right to acquire by compulsory measures any land without payment of any kind, and I do not think anyone who has the interests of the land of this country at heart and realises the need for the necessary action being taken to save the land from wastage, could possibly object to that—and even the most ardent, hard-faced Tory would have to accept it.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: We have had from the Leader of the Communist Party his usual speech advocating compulsion and robbery, which are the two principal tenets of his party. From this side of the House we give a general welcome to this Bill, but there are two points I should like to raise upon it; one has been raised a good many times during the passage of the Bill and the other has, perhaps, not been pressed so hard. The first point is the question of the sharing of the expenses of coast protection work between the coast protection authorities—the local authorities of various kinds—and the central finance of this country; that is to say between the Treasury and the local authorities.
All along, we have said that it was wrong that no firm obligation was placed upon the central authorities to pay up to any stated proportion of the cost. It is entirely left to the Minister of Health to decide whether he gives nothing, whether he gives 100 per cent. whether he gives 80 per cent. or whether he gives 50 per cent., and we believe in principle that that is bad legislation, because the general principles upon which the Minister should act should be laid down clearly in the Bill and not left to his discretion.
We were on Second Reading and in Committee upstairs supported on this point by the Liberal Party, now acquired by Lord Beaverbrook, and, therefore, not present. In both parties we felt that the principle was wrong; and though those hon. Gentlemen now are, no doubt, doing their daily dozen at the telephone making calls asking, "What is the time?" and answering, "Time to vote Liberal," and,

therefore, are not here, were they here I have no doubt they would support this contention which we and they have put up all along, that that principle was wrong. What we have said is that we ought to have a figure such as 80 per cent. or 75 per cent. to be the obligation of the State, and that the Bill should read that the State should put up no less than a certain amount; whereas at the moment the whole matter is entirely undefined and entirely at the discretion of the Minister. That is the first point that I wish to raise.
The second point is the question of what may happen under Clause 7 and the Clauses depending on it, that is to say, what may happen when coast protection charges are levied under works schemes. In my constituency, where we are greatly troubled with coast erosion, there are a number of small villasbungalows—which are threatened, and it seems to me that it is quite possible that under this Bill this may occur. A works scheme may be drawn up and the unfortunate fellow—say, a retired railwayman, for we have a great many such people in my constituency—who is living on 50s. or £3 or £3 10s. a week, a small income indeed, but owning his house, may have officials come along to him to say, "Your bungalow will, as a result of works we are going to do, be worth £200 or £300 more than it is worth now, and, therefore, you will be assessed on the difference between what we believe to be the present value of your bungalow and the value of your bungalow after we have written it up as a result of this works protection scheme."
There is no doubt, of course, that if that is done most of those people will be quite unable to pay. They are already very much on the edge of it. Any retired person, any pensioner, at the present time is having a very difficult time, and will have an increasingly difficult time as prices rise, as they inevitably will do. If he, having saved all his life to get a bungalow, has got one, and is living on a small pension, on which he is only just able to live and if he is told, "You will have to pay on another £200 because we are protecting you from the sea," that will be the last bale of straw that will break his back.
I should like an assurance that that sort of thing will not happen under Clause 7


and the subsequent Clauses—that there will be no possibility that people will be assessed for charges, liability for which they could not have contemplated. With those two qualifications, the qualification of the sharing of the cost by the central Government, and the qualification of what may happen to owners of small property, I welcome the Bill.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. E. Evans: I rise to welcome the Bill. To some of us this Third Reading is the end of a crusade. It is the culmination of the hopes and desires of those of us who represent devastated coastal areas, and we are grateful to the Government for finding it possible to include this Bill in their programme. In spite of all the major preoccupations and anxieties that beset them and the country, they have found time to perform an act of justice and helpfulness to the hard-pressed local authorities who have felt the burden and strain of this drain on their resources for many generations past.
I was very interested to hear the words of the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch). It seems to me that he, in common with his party, has now found a principle. This newly-found principle is that the Government should at last come to the help of the hard-pressed local authorities. This is a very tragic piece of history indeed, the history of coast erosion in Britain, and it makes for some bitterness to reflect that, during all the years when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had the opportunity to put this work into operation and to help the local authorities, they did not provide one penny piece in direct grants to the local authorities.
It is sheer humbug to put up the claim that the Government at this stage should come to the help of the local authorities to the extent that hon. Gentlemen opposite demand. It is very interesting to note that during the Committee stage their claim was for 80 per cent., and they wanted it mandatory that that percentage of the money should be paid to all local authorities, irrespective of their needs—all local authorities, even, that have gained tremendous profits out of their coast protection work and the consequent improvement of amenities. Now, I see that at the Report stage they eased their demands and

reduced them to 75 per cent. They must be losing their grip a little.
The Debates have shown—and it is encouraging—a much wider interest in this subject than we might have supposed existed in it. It has been very gratifying to find that Members from inland constituencies have attended our Debates and have encouraged us by their presence here, and we have had interventions from people not connected with this work. It is to my mind unfortunate that the Opposition have tried to magnify the supposed differences between coast protection boards and river boards and catchment authorities. These differences are, surely, easily resolved. It is no good elaborating them, or supposing that there will not be in the administration of the Measure the most close co-operation between those various interests. If that is not forthcoming, and if one body or another tries to make a prestige point of its authority, then we cannot expect that co-ordination which is so essential to effective coast protection work.
The acceptance of the Bill and its ultimate success will depend, not so much on its involved Clauses and on technical considerations, but on the manner in which its financial provisions are administered. Whatever money is spent will be in the nature of an insurance—an insurance against further depredations along our coasts, an insurance to safeguard property and, indeed, the economic stability of a great many of our coastal areas. I hope that the Minister, in allocating grants, will have regard to the acute strain that has been imposed on those local authorities that have had to divert large capital sums from the provision of other amenities in their own towns to keep the sea at bay.
There is no doubt that a great many towns on our coasts and in river valleys might have been able in the past to provide a great many amenities in the way of increased recreational and cultural facilities had they not had perforce to spend so much of their money on keeping the sea from their towns and in protecting their property. In my own area, a small town of 43,000 people, no less than £1,000,000 has been expended on coast defence—a crippling, permanent liability to the town, which has injured its development and has proved a great strain on the inhabitants.
I particularly stress the need for sympathetic consideration for those authorities who in the past have done their best to keep the sea within bounds, but who have been denied access owing to war conditions. This issue of the denial of access is most important, and it calls for sympathetic consideration by the Minister when he allocates grants. They have had to face large accumulations of arrears in consequence. Speaking from experience, which has been very extensive in my own constituency, I would say that they have suffered as much as anyone along the coast. In so far as the grants are apportioned according to need and in recognition of past efforts, that will make distribution more equitable.
I want to say how pleasant it has been for me to work with my friends on both sides of the House on the Coast Erosion Committee. We hope now to see the fruition of our work, and I think it will be found that we have not been unsuccessful. The Minister has always received us and our representations with sympathy and understanding, and I trust that he will think that we have been of some assistance to him. I pay tribute to my friends and colleagues on both sides. We have had a long and interesting association, and I think that we may congratulate ourselves that tonight we have seen our hopes fulfilled. I am sure that this Measure will be warmly welcomed by those who know the problem at firsthand, and I wish those responsible for its administration the greatest possible success.

6.2 p.m.

Commander Maitland: I do not think that my constituents would agree with the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans) in his tribute to the Government. My constituency is very seriously affected, as the hon. Gentleman knows, by all the problems of coast protection. We lost a considerable number of houses last year; we are in danger at the moment and a large portion of closely inhabited land needs protection. Not in one single thing does this Bill do anything to help us. It is called a Coast Protection Bill. In fact, it protects 48 per cent. of the coast and by no means that 48 per cent. which is worst affected.
There is a feeling that this Bill deals with the places where the problems are more acute and that the drainage boards and river boards that are to come will

deal only with areas that are agricultural land and not inhabited. That, of course, is not so. In many cases, the catchment boards and drainage boards have been for many years the sole defence of land and houses where people are living. That is the position in my constituency. I think that my constituents would agree when the hon. Gentleman said that we were coming to the end of a crusade, because if my recollection of history is correct, the Crusades ended in failure.
We on this side of the House have tried to see that three things were effected. We have tried to see that the Bill was efficiently administered, and for that reason we have tried to protect those authorities who have had the weight of the work on their shoulders in the past. We have tried to protect them from interference by newly-formed authorities and by small local authorities who have not the great knowledge necessary to give them the right of interference. To some considerable extent we have been successful, but there is still need for improvement and still an opportunity for this Bill to be improved.
Secondly, there is the question of money which is of very great importance. This Bill again introduces what is not necessarily this Government's technique, because I regret to say, it is a technique which has been followed in the past, but one which has been far more closely followed by this Government, and that is "grants in ignorance." In other words, authorities do not know what sort of grants they are to get. We maintain that that is wrong. Coast protection work has to be carried out. It is essential to protect the coast of this country. Therefore, the work has to be done, and done as soon as possible. There is nothing which puts a local authority off more than not to know what sort of grant it is to get.
That is why we have tried to specify in the Amendments which we put down the minimum amount of the grant. We believe that is the right principle. Where there is this doubt among local authorities, it is quite true from the point of view of the Ministry that there may be a saving of capital expenditure due to the delay of local authorities coming forward, but that is a thing which we think is not right and which we should like to see out of the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and gallant Gentleman deals with the urgency of this task. Would he not agree that a large amount of money could be saved by the immediate right of entry to which he and his colleagues were opposed?

Commander Maitland: There is in the Bill immediate right of entry at the moment. The hon. Gentleman can have no knowledge of the difficulties of people who live in the coastal areas and who are likely to be affected by the sea if he does not know that there is no question of people objecting to officials entering their land in an emergency. He knows that in the Amendments to which he refers there was no question of emergency.
The distribution of the financial burden on the people of this country to keep their coastline safe should not only be fair but should appear to be fair. It does not appear to be fair to the people of my constituency. It does not appear to be fair to the people who are paying enormously heavy rates, which this Bill does nothing whatever to remove, in order to keep up their coast protection. Therefore, I think that the Bill has failed in its task in trying to spread the burden properly and fairly among the people of this country, if it is to be truly called a Coast Protection Bill.
I agree very largely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) said, although my welcome of the Bill is not so warm; in fact, it is not warm at all, it is extremely frigid. I should, however, like to end on a happier note and to say that I personally have very much appreciated the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has taken the Bill through Committee and the House. He has not always had a very easy time from both sides of the House and some of his nearest and most important neighbours have not made things easy for him, but, nevertheless, he has been extremely helpful, and it has been a great pleasure to sit on the Committee and to have tried and to some extent to have succeeded in making this a useful Bill.

6.9 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: May I add my congratulations to those already offered to the Minister of Health and his Parliamentary Secretary for their good work in carrying this Bill through. I was shocked at the tone of the greater part of the speech of

the hon. and gallant Member for Horn-castle (Commander Maitland). I and other Members have taken a non-party interest in this topic ever since we entered this House in 1945. We are very pleased indeed that tonight we can say that this Bill is on the threshold of becoming law. It means a very great deal, I know, to the constituents of the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), and it means a very great deal to people who live within a few miles of my constituency. This Bill is a great step forward.
I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to look at the Third Schedule. Here we are, an island buffeted for centuries by the Atlantic and the North Sea. We know stories of towns, once thriving, that are now lying below the seas—towns like Ravenspur, a little town which was once a flourishing marketing town and probably a European centre, now below the ocean off Spurn Head. That is typical of lots of towns along the East Coast. On the other hand, there are places like Southport where the sea has been receding more and more in the lifetime of everyone here.
Coast erosion is a problem which has faced this country for centuries, and in passing this Bill tonight we have been going through a long scroll of Acts of Parliament and putting them into limbo because we have bettered the work of previous Governments of the political party now occupying the Opposition benches. The last Act is the Coast Protection Act, 1939, which I have here before me, and I find it is a miserable, puerile little thing providing for an inquiry, with 30 days notice, to protect people who were in danger from removal of gravel on some parts of our coast. But there are no measures for helping the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans), who have to spend thousands of pounds a year on keeping their front intact, especially after the damage of the war when they had no access to these places because of military occupation; nor are there any measures for helping the constituents of hon. Gentlemen opposite interested in this Bill. One would have thought that this problem would have been tackled perennially. But no. This is the first real Bill for tackling a problem which has faced this country for


centuries, and we ought to be very proud of it.
My experience of Parliamentary life leads me to think that had this Government been of the pre-war variety this Measure would probably have occupied half, or nearly the whole of a Session. But here we are, slipping it in between some of the great Measures passed by this Parliament since 1945. It will mean thousands of pounds of saving to people in Norfolk, Suffolk and elsewhere who have had to carry on this national fight single-handed for many years. We have heard criticism of the figure of 80 per cent. proposed by the Opposition as the size of grant by the Minister.

Commander Maitland: As a minimum.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows as well as I do that outside my constituency, in rural districts and places such as Caister, to try to put the responsibility for 80 per cent. on to working people and those living in remote country parishes, in trying to tackle the problem of coast erosion, is fantastic. What we rely on is a public-spirited gentleman like my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who recognises this as part of a national problem. These areas know that they will get a very sympathetic hearing from him, such as we have had in our negotiations with him in bringing this great Bill forward within the last few years.
I am very proud indeed that this weekend I can go back to my constituents and say that we have put this Bill on the Statute Book; that the coasts of this country will be inviolate for the first time in our history; that this will be a national responsibility; and that just because a person happens to be born in Lowestoft or Yarmouth, or parts of Yorkshire, he will not be worse off in this respect than someone in a place like Southport.
This is a great Bill, and I am sorry to hear the carping criticism of hon. Gentlemen opposite, some of whom have worked very well with us on a non-party basis in pressing this matter over the last few years. I conclude by congratulating my right hon. Friend, and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary who has had the task of piloting this Bill through all its stages. I think we all agree that he has won his spurs. Perhaps this time next year he will be piloting a bigger Measure through the House when he has

responsibility for a more important office.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: The sooner he does it the better as far as we are concerned.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Bowen: I should like to associate myself with the expressions of appreciation from both sides of the House to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary in introducing this Bill.

Mr. Birch: Not the Minister. The Minister has never been near it.

Mr. Bowen: The Minister will have a good deal to do with whether or not this Bill functions properly.
During the last few minutes two extreme points of view have been expressed. We have had the unqualified praise of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans) and the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn), and the highly critical view of the Bill by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland). I find myself in this position. I certainly welcome the Bill, for it is long overdue. This Measure should have been introduced many years ago, by earlier Governments. The problems and the difficulties we have to face now would be very much less if this Bill had been in existence—

Mr. Marlowe: In 1906.

Mr. Bowen: In 1906, if you like. If the progress which was made from 1906 until the 1914 war had continued after that war we certainly would not be facing all the problems we have today. I have been tempted to digress.
The only point I want to make is this. This Bill will certainly meet a great need. Whether any practical result will come from it depends, I think almost entirely, on how its financial provisions are implemented. That is my sole cause of anxiety. I do not want to go over again the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) and myself in Committee; they have been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle. Unless the Minister is prepared to take full account of the position of authorities where the product from a penny rate is extremely small, and


is prepared to extend to them the maximum financial aid, this Bill will be a dead letter. That is why I have to adopt a somewhat qualified attitude towards this Bill, because whether or not it will be of any practical value remains to be seen, and depends entirely on the Minister's approach to his financial duties. If he is prepared to recognise the difficulties of areas such as my own, and the impossibility of their implementing coast protection schemes unless they are given almost 100 per cent. assistance, this Bill might just as well not have been passed.
In Committee, when dealing with Amendments relating to the suggestion for a minimum percentage grant, and the suggestion that it should be a national charge, the Parliamentary Secretary adopted a certain attitude. If that spirit is manifested in practice and translated into action by the Minister when he deals with the financial provisions, this Bill certainly should do a great deal to assist the areas I have in mind. All I can hope is that the promises made by the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to these problems in the poor areas will be kept, and that the attitude of his Department when these questions arise for consideration will be in accordance with the approach he indicated.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) began by emphasising the difference of opinion which exists between Members opposite and the Conservative Party, and he ended by illustrating that, true to the Liberal tradition, he is sitting on the fence. I wish to deal with the differences which exist between the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) and the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans) and those of us on this side of the House. The hon. and gallant Member began by saying that this was a non-partisan Bill, an entirely non-controversial matter, but went on to develop the argument that all the erosion of the coast has been entirely due to the Tory Party.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: indicated dissent.

Mr. Marlowe: He also seemed to make it clear that there were many places where this Bill would not achieve a great deal of good. In spite of the partisan

approach introduced by the hon. and gallant Member, he had to agree that the Socialist representative who lives at Lowestoft has been attacked by the sea, while on that part of the coast represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) the sea has receded.
I wish to deal with two or three points in this Bill with which I do not find myself in agreement. There is, first, the general approach to the problem which is thoroughly socialistic in outlook. I am referring, in particular, to matters such as we have discussed regarding the right of entry to private property, which I do not wish to elaborate again. It is a characteristic of Socialists that they do not respect the right of property owners. In Bill after Bill which they present, we find Clauses, such as the Clause contained in this Bill, permitting entry by force against the will of the property owner.

Mr. Gallacher: Who gave the property owners the right to the land?

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member's views on property are sufficiently well known and I need not even refer to them, but I have to be a little more specific with Members who belong to the Socialist Party.

Mr. E. Evans: Is not the right of entry in order to protect the property?

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member entirely misses the point. The owner who wants his property protected will be only too willing to invite the authorities to come on to his land. What we object to is entry without notice against the will of the occupier or the owner of the property.
The next point I want to deal with is in regard to Clause 19, which is the only Clause, as far as I can see, that in any way deals with the question of compensation. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that I referred earlier to the question of compensation for those quarrying for sand or shingle on certain parts of the coast who were disturbed. This Bill may well deprive of their livelihood these people who are engaged in perfectly legitimate activities, and yet no provision is made for compensation. The Parliamentary Secretary merely answered the case by saying that it was desirable to remove these people. I can assure him that that is not so.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. Marlowe: I hope I am not misrepresenting the Parliamentary Secretary. He referred to those instances where damage was being done. I entirely agree that where damage is being done it is desirable that it should be arrested, but I am referring to cases where damage is not being done. The position is that, although no damage to the coast is being done by these people, they can be removed from their livelihood. Does the Parliamentary Secretary deny that proposition?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Of course I deny it. I made it perfectly clear that coast protection authorities will stop excavation work on beaches only where it is necessary to protect the coast from damage being done by the excavations, and I said that it can only be done by means of an order which will not automatically apply to the whole area.

Mr. Marlowe: I am not saying that it will automatically apply, but the Parliamentary Secretary agrees that, although someone may not be doing damage, the coast protection authority can nevertheless refuse a licence and drive that person from his livelihood. The Parliamentary Secretary's answer is that the coast protection authority will not make orders in such cases. But how does he know? He does not make the orders; it is the coast protection authority. It is idle for the Parliamentary Secretary to say this will not be done, because he has not the faintest idea what will happen. My complaint is that there is nothing to prevent the coast protection authority from making an order and thereby putting a person out of business.
My third point relates to Clause 21, which deals with the question of grants made by the Ministry in respect of damage suffered by a coastal area. It is unfortunate that this matter has not been dealt with in a more realistic way in relation to those areas where there was a denial of access during and immediately after the war. There are many areas where the damage has become greatly intensified by reason of military occupation during the war. The Parliamentary Secretary does not seem to have appreciated that during those six years there

has been much more than the normal six-years damage to our coasts. Normally the maintenance work would be done year by year, which would have minimised the damage in the ensuing years, but with six consecutive years without maintenance work the proportion of damage is greatly increased.
It is most unfortunate that the Bill limits payment to what has occurred after August, 1945. The only way is to make this particular war damage a national charge. There seems to be no reason at all why such parts of the coast as those in which I am interested should have to bear the whole cost of making good the damage done during occupation by the Army, which was for the benefit not only of Sussex but of the whole of the country. This is a burden which ought not to fall on my local authority. It is a burden which should be shared by all local authorities and by the Exchequer. It should be a national charge and not a charge on the local people.
For these reasons, I am bound to say that I do not find myself an enthusiastic supporter of this Bill. There are some parts of it which go halfway towards doing what is required, but it is idle for the hon. Member for Lowestoft to get up and talk about this as being the end of a crusade and the Government having discharged a task which should have been done years ago. What has happened is that it has become impossible for local authorities to perform the work they previously did because this Government has thrown so much expenditure on them that they cannot bear the expense.
This Bill has now been rendered completely unreal by the situation the country has been brought to by the Government. It has been rendered unreal because this is a matter involving capital expenditure and we have not been told by the Prime Minister, who has talked in a vague way about more cuts in capital expenditure, what the cuts are to be—he would not particularise them in a document of any kind. We know, however, that one of the items scheduled to be cut is expenditure under this Bill. This may be merely an idle performance we are going through in passing this Bill, because it may be that, without any of us knowing it, the Treasury have decided to make the Bill completely ineffective.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I should like to follow the point which has just been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe). I wonder what real benefit will be attracted to the sea-coast territories as a result of this Bill within the next five years. It is regrettable that the Government, having waited for nearly five years before bringing in the Bill, and having to a large extent stultified the efforts of the local authorities and private owners in carrying out normal defence works themselves, by holding out the hope that the whole matter would be subject to a national charge, should again put us into the position of having to consider the probable deferment of the whole business.
I should like to refer to what the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) said before he goes out of the Chamber, because I had considerable sympathy with him. He said he had noted the remarks made by a certain noble Lord in another place when the Bill was under consideration there. That noble Lord, who has sat in this or the other place for some 43 years, holding high office at different times and thus having had a great number of Bills to contend with, admitted that he had never come across a Bill which was so intricate and difficult as this Bill. I take it that the hon. and gallant Member took warning from that and did not distress himself by considering the contents of the Bill, but confined his remarks to the situation as it was between the wars.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: If the noble Lord in another place had said he could remember, over 40 years, many Bills dealing with coast protection, there might have been something in the point, but he could not.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I will leave the hon. and gallant Member to carry out his desire to leave the Chamber.
May I now turn to the question of the Bill's financial provisions? I do not wish to labour the matter, but from the point of view of my own constituency it seems quite illogical that people who live in North Sussex, who shop in Surrey and have all their interests in Surrey, should be

subject to a contribution for these charges as a result of their direct interest in the county through rates, whereas their neighbours just over the border have only an indirect contribution to make to coastal protection through the national Exchequer. It is completely illogical because both parties enjoy the coast. There is no difference in the benefit which they enjoy from the protection works which may be carried out, yet there is this hard-and-fast dividing line as to who pays and who does not. The Minister of Fuel and Power, who is sitting on the Front Bench and who is one of my constituents, will have to contribute directly towards sea-coast protection, but if he moved slightly across the border his contribution would be limited to the amount which he had to pay in taxes through the national Exchequer.
The whole build-up of the method of contribution makes it essential, in the natural way of carrying on local authority business, that necessary sea-coast protection works will be deferred. They will be deferred on an accumulating basis and will gradually get worse—the more they are deferred the more rapidly does the need become greater—until we get to a certain point before the Exchequer agrees to the Ministry making their contribution. Until the situation gets really bad, we shall see that, in practice, however good the intentions of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, the Treasury will not approve of a contribution being made to the work being done.
Clause 31 is our notorious old friend the Henry VIII Clause. We thought we had succeeded in precluding this Clause from coming into legislation again. It is a heinous Clause and is contrary to the dignity of Parliament. That any Minister should have the right to vary, modify, withdraw, or, if necessary, cancel provisions which have been passed by Parliament and put into statutory enactments, and not even come before Parliament with his new provisions, unless they have certain effects, is wholly wrong.
I want to explain a qualification of a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary. When he gave me an assurance on a matter of detail, I was not quite sure whether he was intentionally limiting that assurance. When an order is


made under this Clause power is given, under the First Schedule, to various parties to object if they consider that to be necessary. The parties who have a right to object are really the parties who are concerned particularly with the Bill—local authorities, coast protection boards, and so on. The people for whom I was seeking an assurance are those who enjoy some protective provision in other legislation. The fear I have is that the Minister, in making an order which will cancel that protective provision, may quite inadvertently do it in a way which will not come to the attention of the person for whose benefit that protective provision has been passed. I believe that the only proper way to ensure the protection of those whom Parliament intended to protect is to let all these orders come, before Parliament so that they get the necessary publicity, and that the private person whom Parliament sought to protect shall continue to be protected.
I wish now to refer to Clause 30. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton mentioned that there was no other Clause dealing with compensation. This Clause deals with compensation in a different sense—compensation which the Minister considers it may be suitable to give to officers who lose their jobs when boards or coast protection authorities have their functions transferred, or are amalgamated or generally reorganised as a result of his activities. That is right and proper, but what I object to is that the whole question of whether compensation is payable, and, if so, to what extent, is left entirely to the Minister's discretion. This is not a satisfactory provision. I do not think we can say that it is fair to the Minister or to the officer who has been serving the coast protection authority that the officer's whole future is a matter of bargaining between the two. It does not seem to me to be the way in which Parliament should have dealt with the question, and it is a matter which I sincerely trust will not become a precedent in future Bills.
In general, may I once more express regret that the Minister of Health, as opposed to the Minister of Agriculture, is the dominant Minister under this Bill, but whoever is going to do the job, I would remind the Government that they have kept us waiting more or less on tenterhooks for some four years. As a matter of fact, it is rather more since we first started

trying to get them to move in this matter. Whether or not the Bill will be put into effective operation, in view of the Government's decisions on the suspension of capital expenditure and all that, one does not know, but I beg of them to make up their minds immediately and to let the coast protection authorities and the local authorities on the coast know what is their intention. In suspense nothing can be done by local authorities, but whether they are in suspense or not, the sea goes on damaging our coasts and eroding them. It is essential, particularly after the weather we have been having, that the people should know what the Government are going to do to implement the provisions of this Bill. The position is likely to be very serious indeed this winter.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Gooch: As representing a division which has a very long mileage of coast line and where terrific damage is done from time to time, I give a welcome to this Bill. In my part of the country the sea makes a terrific onslaught from time to time and much money has been spent in repairing the damage. The whole problem has been a financial one, and unless and until there are means made available, the problem cannot be tackled as it should be. Hon. Members opposite have expressed doubt whether anything will come out of this Bill. I know I am expressing the feeling of a good many people in my part of the country when I say that I welcome the passing of the Bill because of the great amount of good work that can be done under it.
Earlier this year, I went into two villages in my constituency where the sea had broken through. As I passed from house to house I could see the debris that had been left by the sea, which had forced the people to live upstairs. They were in a despairing state, and they asked me whether there was any possibility of this Government coming to their assistance. I am very glad that with the passing of this Bill their request to a very large extent will be complied with.
We have been trying for a good many years to deal with this problem on a voluntary basis, and I realise that within the last few years the Ministry of Agriculture have come forward with sub-


stantial grants enabling a certain amount of work to be done. However, this problem needs something more than raising money by whist drives and dances. That is what is being done. These functions are being held in order to erect sea walls and such other works to deal with coast erosion. That is entirely wrong. I have always said that the State should come to the assistance of those who are in this plight.
I was privileged to play a small part in paving the way for this Bill. When the Lord President of the Council was down in my area of Norfolk, I urged him to spend an hour or two to go along the Norfolk coast to see what the sea had been doing. After the Lord President had finished his tour of those parts, especially where much damage had been done, the expression he used was, "You have got a case." I was delighted when in January, 1947, the Prime Minister, replying to a Question I had put down to him on this subject, announced the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to deal with this colossal problem.
Hon. Members opposite have spoken about the delay which has taken place in reaching this stage tonight. The delay that has taken place in the lifetime of the Labour Government is nothing compared with that which took place in the lifetime of other Governments. Other Governments have taken up this problem of sea erosion, and then dropped it like a hot brick. This Government have not only taken the question up, but have held on to it. With the passing of this Bill the people living in the coastal districts will be provided with the means to deal with this terrific problem. In my division, the people are anticipating the passage of this Bill, and the Erpingham Rural District Council has already been in touch with the parish councils to ascertain the size of the problem in their areas and secure their suggestions as to how the problem should be dealt with. Thus the Erpingham Rural District Sea Defence Committee will be in a position to start on a variety of schemes when this Bill is passed. The Bill will give new hope to those people who have been looking for help for a long time past, and all I can say to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House is that I challenge them to challenge a Division on this Bill.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. McKie: In a few words I should like to give qualified approval to this Bill. My welcome is very much nearer to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) than that given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horn-castle (Commander Maitland). I should like also to say, speaking as a Scottish Member, that I deplore the only intervention up to date from Scotland, namely, that of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who proposed confiscation instead of compensation to property owners affected by this Measure. I should have thought that the hon. Member would have had something more constructive to propose on Third Reading. There is a considerable coastline in his division of West Fife, and I was waiting to hear him say something really constructive. I was disappointed when he did not do so, and I was surprised when the hon. Gentleman suggested to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that he should introduce in another place an Amendment to this Bill. That was lamentable ignorance on the part of the hon. Gentleman, because he should have known that this Bill had emanated from another place. I do not propose to say anything more than that on what the hon. Gentleman said.
Having a coastline of something like 300 to 400 miles in my constituency, I cannot but take a considerable interest in this Measure, although I do not think it will do all the wonderful things which were claimed for it by the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) in his fulsome adulation. We shall have to judge the Bill on its achievements Indeed, as has been suggested from this side of the House during the Debate, the Bill may never become operative because of the cuts in capital expenditure, and therefore we may be only deceiving ourselves on this Third Reading. The hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth should, in the words of a former prominent Liberal statesman, "wait and see." He should not jump in too quickly to tell us all that is going to be done, or describe this as one of the greatest legislative achievements of this Government.
Having a very extensive coastline in my constituency, I take a considerable interest in the passage


of this Measure. Fortunately, coast erosion does not bother us very largely, but coast encroachment is becoming quite a serious matter for the small ports and harbours. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will fully testify to the fact that in his own constituency, which has a considerable seaboard, the same kind of thing is going on. I hope in this matter also to have the support of the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth. I sincerely hope that something concrete may be done under this Measure, particularly in the re-opening of some of those ports and harbours. Some 30 or 40 years ago there was a very extensive coastal shipping industry along the coast there, but it has almost entirely disappeared and the ports and harbours have closed down.
A considerable movement has sprung up since the end of the war urging that these ports and harbours should be put into repair and used. I hope that the Bill will go a long way towards achieving that object. It is very necessary that this form of coastal shipping should be opened up for a widespread rural area, especially having regard to the growing inefficiency of the British railway system. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will bear that point in mind, because very strong representations were made to him on that point when he had a very enjoyable four days' holiday in my constituency during September. I put the matter to him on more than one occasion.
I should like to mention one point in connection with coast erosion. It approximates to that which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint and concerns the rights of property owners, large or small, and more probably small, which I say for the benefit of the hon. Member for West Fife. In consequence of the passage of this Measure, those property-owners will be in considerable difficulty about their assessments.
I can think of one place in particular in my constituency, just the kind of place which my hon. Friend had in view. It is a place called Portpatrick on the Wigtownshire coast. It is a tourist resort where there is quite considerable coast erosion. I was speaking only this morning on the telephone to someone who takes great interest in the affairs of that place and he assured me that something like £8,000 will be required to deal with the

position there. The harbour is used every year by the fishing fleet and it will very speedily go to ruin unless that money can be found. In the old days it was the embarkation point for the short sea passage to Ireland. I hope that it will be possible under this Measure to have the necessary work done. I am sure that, not only from the point of view of the property owners concerned but of the finances of the local authority, there is complete unison in what has been said by the several speakers from the Conservative benches.
Having addressed those few remarks particularly to the Under-Secretary of State, I have nothing more to say. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen would like me to go on, it will be quite possible for me to do so and to keep well within the Rules of Order but I have no intention of trespassing upon the patience of the Chair, which is very much more important than pleasing or displeasing hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they will now allow me to say so, that is all I have to say by way of hostile or partly hostile criticism. I agree to giving the Bill a Third Reading.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As next-door neighbour to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), I can testify that he represents a long and interminable coastline—nearly as long and interminable as some of his speeches. I welcome the rather belated interest in the Bill of Conservative Members for Scotland. I remember that during the protracted Committee stage—I say in fairness to the hon. Member for Galloway that he was not a member of the Committee—I was the only Scottish Member, apart from the Minister, who took any interest in the Bill. We did not see any Conservative Members for Scotland in the Committee, presumably because they were satisfied that the long coastline of Scotland should be represented by a Welshman. I give a hearty welcome to the Bill, which will greatly benefit the fishing community of Scotland, especially on the West Coast.

Mr. Birch: The Bill has nothing to do with fishing.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Flint is not aware that fishing is carried on along the coast and that fishing villages


need to be protected from erosion and their harbours from the ravages of the sea. He probably knows more about the Stock Exchange than the sea. In my constituency are at least two little communities that hope to benefit from the financial provisions of the Bill. I refer to the town of Girvan and to the fishing village of Maidens. Both of them are very anxious at the present time that the Bill should go through and that they should get grants under it. I assume that those grants will come.
I remember during the Committee stage, when the Opposition were trying hard to find constructive Amendments, that one Amendment suggested that the works proposed under the Bill should be advertised in the "London Gazette." Some of us wanted to know, if works needed to be done on the Scottish coast, why it was necessary to advertise them in a local paper like the "London Gazette." Ultimately the Amendment was washed out because that was exactly the wrong paper in which to advertise. It was a London paper and it might have reached the eye of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have no great desire for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take a particular interest in the expenditure we are incurring upon the west coast of Scotland.
I am anxious about one part of the Bill. There were references in the Prime Minister's statement yesterday to the possibility of a reduction in expenditure in connection with coast erosion. I hope that the Government's attitude to the Bill will not be that this is only a small infant and that it should be smothered at birth. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been very helpful in this matter and I suggest that he use all the influence he has with the Scottish Department to see that these provisions are not subject either to the axe of economy or to the jack-knife of the Treasury. It is a very important Bill for the fishing community of the west coast of Scotland and I heartily support it. I hope that its financial provisions will not attract unnecessary attention from the Treasury.
I do not quite understand the point of view of those Members of the Opposition who are urging us this afternoon to get 100 per cent. Treasury grants. For the next two days they are going to

denounce national expenditure, but here they are urging the Government to increase expenditure.

Mr. Birch: Surely the hon. Member must appreciate that what matters economically is whether the job is done or not. That is what generates the purchasing power. He asks, if the job is done—in most cases we all agree that it has to be done—who pays for it; whether it is raised by local or national taxation? Economically there is really no difference.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope the logic of that argument will be carried forward into the Debate tomorrow and the day afterwards. I think that the national expenditure incurred in this Bill will be useful capital expenditure and in the interests of the people of the country. In this Debate we have had criticism of the Bill because it does not respect property. I do not think that that argument can be applied to this Bill or to any other Measure introduced by this Government. Criticism which can be made is that there has been super-respect for property in the Bill, and I hope that that criticism will also be applied to the next Bill before us tonight.

7.1 p.m.

Major Tufton Beamish: I wish to make a few brief remarks particularly because the coastline of my constituency is one of the biggest trouble spots so far as the coast of the United Kingdom is concerned, as it includes Seaford. Newhaven, Peacehaven and several other places. I was surprised by what was said by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and not least by his statement that Scotland has an "interminable" coastline. That is quite beyond me; I just do not understand it.
I was even more surprised at his statement that hon. Members on this side of the House had at some stage of the Bill pressed for coast protection to be 100 per cent. a national charge. So far as I know—I am open to correction—nobody has pressed for that. If they have, they have done so in an individual capacity. I hope it will not go down on the record that there has been any attempt to make this a 100 per cent. national charge. Not less than 80 per cent. was recommended and later a charge of 75 per cent. upon national sources


was recommended, but 100 per cent. was never mentioned.
I agreed with the hon. Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Gooch), and I am the first to admit that he played no small part in bringing forward the Bill.

Mr. Gooch: In paving the way.

Major Beamish: All right, then—in bringing it forward along the way which he has paved. I readily admit it. However, I cannot help reminding him—this is most pertinent to the contents of the Bill—that he was a leading member of a committee called the Coast Erosion Sub-committee of the County Councils' Association which met on 1st May, 1947, under the chairmanship of a colleague of his, the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer). It was a small but very important sub-committee. It was unanimously of the opinion that in the general public interest the cost of sea defence works should be made a national charge, and it so recommended. I have here the proceedings of the subcommittee. It says:
As a result, they have reached the unanimous conclusion that the administrative and financial principles upon which the statement is based"—
That is the Prime Minister's statement of 27th January, 1947, upon which the whole principles of the Bill are based—
are wholly unacceptable, and they will consider it to be their duty"—
Mark that, "their duty"—
to oppose any legislation designed to give effect to them.
I can only say that the hon. Gentleman has had a mental aberration since then, as has his hon. Friend, and has forgotten the contents of that most important report. I am sorry that the crack of the party whip has proved stronger than the consciences of those two hon. Members who must have been speaking very largely for their parties, since they were experts in these matters.
I am also sorry that there has been some attempt during the Third Reading Debate to make party capital out of this. It happens that for some 2½ or three years I was the honorary secretary of an all-party coast erosion committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend—he is my friend—the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans). All of us on this Committee

did a great deal to urge upon the Government the need to bring forward this Bill in view of the immense damage done to the coastline during the war.
It is pertinent to remind the House—in view of the argument that nothing was done between the wars—that on 31st May, 1911, a Royal Commission on coastal protection reported, with only one dissentient that coastal protection should not be made a national charge and that no case had been made out for it. Then we had a war during which coastal works were undertaken and during which access to the coastline was not barred to anything like the same extent as in the last war. There is no comparison with the inter-war period, during which, incidentally, the parties in power—we were in power quite a few years—did a great deal to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I would emphasise that there was only one dissentient from the decision that there was no case for making coast protection a national charge. Since the war, Members of all parties in our small Committee have held the view that it should be substantially a national charge, and although the Bill does not go the whole way towards meeting the arguments, it goes part of the way. Hon. Members ought to admit that, in trying to make any sort of party capital out of this, they are not being at all fair.
I want also to support my hon. and learned Friend the junior Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) in what he said with reference to his Amendment which has been rejected but is still pertinent to the Bill. I hope that the Minister will most carefully read his speech and ensure that under the Bill as it is at present drafted their livelihood will not be taken away from those who have earned it in the past by obtaining shingle or other material from beaches simply because a coast protection order is made. That matter cannot be dismissed with an airy wave of the hand. We have to consider not only the livelihood of the employers but the livelihood of the men who work for them. In my constituency and the constituencies of other hon. Members with coastal problems there are many people who may be affected if the Bill is not looked at in that light.
I want also to add my protest to the protests already made about the absence


of the Minister of Health. It shows a most strong and marked lack of respect for the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that he should not even take the trouble to come here and participate in the Third Reading of the Bill. I protest as strongly as I am able. It is a most disgraceful thing; it is treating us with scant respect, if any respect at all. Nonetheless, I readily admit that I think this is, on the whole, a good Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I cannot see why it should be thought frightfully funny that I think that it is quite a good Bill. Many of my hon. Friends think that it has good aspects, although we have carried out the duty of the Opposition by criticising it and improving it. I am sorry that hon. Members opposite who did not like it did not also do their duty and criticise it.
I am particularly surprised at the financial measures in the Bill in view of the fact that in Seaford, in my constituency, and at Caister, two parts of our coastline where the problem is at its greatest, the Government have already, before the Bill has become law, made exceptions and allowed 80 per cent. grants—

Mr. Blenkinsop: I do not understand why the hon. and gallant Gentleman should say "exceptions."

Major Beamish: I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman should not understand. I was under the impression that an Amendment was moved from this side at an earlier stage asking that at least 80 per cent. should be a national charge. I am simply pointing out that in the two most important cases where big coastal works have been undertaken the Government have shown that they agree with our point of view by making a grant of 80 per cent. at Caister and Seaford, which seems to show that there may have been a great deal in our arguments. I would not always think an argument was a good one because the Government happened to agree with it; in fact, I should very seldom think so. The Bill also has been much improved by both Houses, although there is undoubtedly still much room for improvement.
I will conclude by saying that I entirely agree with the hon. Member for South

Ayrshire who is so rightly proud of being a Scotsman. [An HON. MEMBER: "A Welshman.] This Bill seems to me, as it seems to him, to be illogical at this moment when we are being led into such an appallingly grave crisis by the gross incompetence of the Government.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: First I would pay a tribute to all those who have directed the attention of the Government to this problem in earlier years, and particularly to the efforts of Members of the unofficial Committee of this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans) and others on both sides who have kept this issue alive and have done much useful work in ensuring that this Bill should come before us. If, however, I may use the words of the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), the "frigid welcome" that he was giving to this Bill seems to be the proper description of the attitude of hon. Members opposite altogether. I can quite understand, from the attitude they have taken on the Third Reading of this Bill, why it was so difficult to get any action of this kind in earlier years when hon. and right hon. Members opposite had direct responsibility for the Government of the country. If, indeed, we are to take up the attitude which seemed to be taken by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe), of insisting that the private interests of one or two should stand in the way of essential public work which can bring relief to many, no wonder that little was done in the intervening years.

Mr. Marlowe: Since the hon. Gentleman was referring to me, I hope he will let me interrupt. I think he knows that I have never said any such thing, or else he has failed completely to understand, in which case he must be deficient in intelligence.

Mr. Blenkinsop: That is the kind of personal insult that one might expect to receive from the hon. and learned Gentleman who has done little to assist in the progress of this Bill and has, indeed, shown his anxiety merely to put forward one or two purely private interests and to prevent, if he can, this Measure going through. I am surprised that he does not vote against this Measure in the Lobby. It would be a far more honourable thing


to do than to make the general criticisms he has made during the passage of this Bill. I certainly absolve other hon. Members opposite from much of that criticism because many of the suggestions they have put forward during the Committee and Report stages have been valuable. As I think they will willingly agree, we have inserted in the Bill a number of the proposals which they put forward and in that way have ensured that the position of the various undertakers who will be concerned in this matter is properly and fairly safeguarded.
After all, the main feature of this Bill is to ensure that there shall be some effective co-ordination of the work upon the coastline of this country. One of the great difficulties of the past has been that work might be done on one section which would have a serious effect on other parts of the coastline. It was not necessarily the case that nothing was done, but that a great deal of what was done had a serious effect on other parts. Therefore, one of the most important features of this Measure is not only that it enables new work to be carried out, but also that it gives some guarantee that that work will be carried out with the co-operation of the various authorities and will not be to the detriment of any other parts of the coastline.
It is perfectly true that the shortage of materials is one of the prime factors limiting the amount of coast protection work that it will be possible to carry out. Above all, this work is costly in terms of steel. Obviously, therefore, we are bound to be limited by the amount of material that we shall be able to provide for work on our coastline. All the more important is it that the work to go forward shall be carried out to the best advantage, and that we get the working together of all authorities concerned. I am convinced that it is quite possible under this Bill for all the authorities who have the right and power to carry out coast protection work to do so in co-operation with one another. We shall certainly do all we can to ensure it, since that is the principle underlying this Measure.
The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) and others referred to finances, and on Second Reading hon. Members opposite raised the question of whether or not this work should be made a wholly national charge. In Committee that was brought

down to 80 per cent. and later to 75 per cent. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) asked whether, if it is true that the Ministry have authorised a grant of 80 per cent. in two specific instances, that does not prove that it was right to insist that 80 per cent. should be paid in all cases? Of course it does not. Those are two serious cases which have been judged on their merits and where it was quite clear that, without the guarantee of that grant, the work would not have been carried out.
These are the criteria we must use in considering the different schemes put up. We must consider whether the authority concerned can reasonably be expected to recoup a large part of the expenditure from various revenue earnings which it can obtain from the works themselves or from what it carries out on top of the coast protection works; or whether the charge will fall heavily and there will be little revenue arising from them or none at all. The position varies enormously in every part of the country, so we must examine the position in each case before we decide what grant shall be made. What we have done in those two instances of Seaford and Caister shows that it is the intention of the Government to ensure that where a large grant is necessary to see that the work is done, it shall be made available. Indeed there is no reason why 80 per cent should be regarded necessarily as a maximum; equally there is no reason why in some areas a grant should be made at all.
I was rather surprised, too, that the hon. Member for Flint raised the question of liability to payments under works schemes. He put the case of the small occupier who might find it difficult to make payments. The point of the works scheme is to ensure that where advantages have accrued to individuals or owners they should be invited—if you like, required—to make a reasonable contribution towards it. However, we have inserted a series of provisions to ensure that they shall have the right of appeal should the charge levied upon them be an unreasonable one. The charge which would be levied would in any case be a small one, and I cannot imagine any likelihood whatever of a very small owner who is charged suffering any hardship under the Bill. We want, however, to ensure that the larger owner, who is securing


substantial advantages from the work to be carried out, should be expected to make a reasonable contribution. On the question of excavations on the seashore, I should make the point that the approval of the Minister is required to any order made to stop excavations.
Altogether, we can be satisfied that the Bill marks a very real advance. It means that we can today make grants out of the national Exchequer towards coast protection work, which were not possible in the past. It means, above all, that we can hope to secure a real, effective co-ordination of all our different efforts throughout the country towards this very great and important aim. During the Report stage, I mentioned the example of the work now going on at Caister, with the very real co-operation of all those concerned, and where, in spite of very great difficulties and doubt whether we should ever succeed in protecting many homes and also a great deal of land lying to the rear, we can now be satisfied that the work is being successful and that the grant that we made available has had the result that we intended it to have. Therefore, we can part with the Bill confident that, although the work we do under it will inevitably be limited by the amount of materials we can provide for it, we can make great advances in this work and bring great benefit to a great many people.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.23 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a one-Clause Bill which has a very limited scope and purpose. It is concerned only with one aspect of the compensation arrangements for colliery companies. It does not affect the amount of compensation paid but relates solely to the kind of payment of certain sums which would in any case have to be, and would have been, paid to the companies when the process of valuation was complete.
To explain the Bill I must. I am afraid, refer to the position under the 1946 nationalisation Act. The House will perhaps recall that there were three stages under which the compensation to be paid to the colliery companies was to be settled. The first stage was the fixing of the global sum to be distributed among all the colliery companies at what was called "the coal industry value of the industry"; that is to say, those assets which were associated with the system of wages ascertainment which existed prior to nationalisation. In effect, those assets covered, broadly speaking, the pits and the actual machinery and equipment relevant to the production of coal, but did not cover the ancillary properties—coke ovens, brickworks and so on.
The second stage was the division of the global sum among the various districts. That was to be done by a central valuation board. The last stage is the division of the sums allocated to the districts among the companies and, at the same time, the valuation of the ancillary assets which had been handed over by the companies to the National Coal Board on the vesting day. In point of fact, the global sum was settled in the month of July, 1946. The division of the global sum was settled by the Central Valuation Board in February, 1949. That is to say, a considerable period elapsed between the fixing of the global sum and its sub-division. The reason for that time elapsing was that the various district associations representing the different companies very naturally argued at considerable length, in front of the Central Valuation Board about what they regarded as their appropriate share of the total sum.
It was, of course, inevitable in these circumstances that some time would elapse between the vesting date and the final settlement of compensation. The 1946 Act recognises that, primarily by providing a right to what is called "interim income." This means, in effect, that when compensation is finally paid, interest from the vesting date to the date of payment on the capital sum to be paid should be added. It is, I think, described in the Act as additional sums.
The 1946 Act, however, did something else. It also provided for what were called "revenue payments" to be made


to the companies in respect of the two years after the vesting date. These revenue payments were equal to half what was called "the comparable ascertained revenue of the company," which was in turn equal either to the profit of the last year before 1st July, 1946, or to the average profit of the two preceding years, at the option of the company, with a minimum of 4d. per ton. These so-called revenue payments were in place of the accumulated interest—in other words, the interim income—if they were equal to or exceeded the interim income. If, on the other hand, they fell short of the interim income—the accumulated interest—the balance had to be paid over. That was the rather complicated procedure laid down in the 1946 Act.
The process of valuation has, as I have said, been continued and progress has been made, and some £30 million has been paid to the colliery companies in respect of various classes of property, but there is no denying that the main job is by no means finished, and is unlikely to be finished for at least another year. Meanwhile, the colliery companies, or the most part of them, continue in existence. In existence, they incur costs. Incidentally, part of their costs are incurred in fighting for what they regard as their rights under the Act—

Mr. Brendan Bracken: I should hope so.

Mr. Gaitskell: —that is to say, arguing in front of the various boards and valuation authorities that have been set up. Some of these companies, no doubt, have other sources of income and reserves, but not necessarily all of them. The question therefore arises, should anything be done to bridge the gap which now exists between the end of the revenue payments—because that process lasted for only two years—and the final payment of compensation.
I took the view that, while it seemed to me out of the question to countenance any additional compensation being paid to the colliery companies, it was not unreasonable to consider payments on account to them in respect of what they were in any case eventually to receive. I had to consider what the general view of the Government was at the time of the passing of the 1946 Act, and while no undertaking was given by my predecessor

or by other Members of the Government at that time, it would be fair to say that their general expectation was that the process of valuation would be somewhat speedier than it has turned out to be.
Moreover, when discussing this very question during the passage of the Bill, reference was made to the possibility of the Minister taking action to deal with this problem by making regulations under the 1946 Act. It was thought at that time, I believe, that the Minister had powers to deal with the situation that might arise if such a gap supervened—that is to say, between the end of the revenue payments and the settlement of the final compensation. It was thought that the Minister could deal with this question under regulations. That was my own impression when I first began to study this problem, and I recall answering one or two questions in the House which were put to me from time to time by saying that I hoped to make regulations if it was necessary at the end of the revenue payments.
I am now advised that this is not possible. The provision under Section 19 might allow the Minister to make regulations providing for the repayment of capital earlier, but that would not really help the present position because that repayment of capital would necessarily be tied up and could not be used for ordinary current expenditure. The alternative method of Section 22, likewise, I am advised, could not be used for this purpose. Therefore I came to the conclusion that it was fair and right, without increasing by a single penny the amount of compensation to be paid, to make provision in some way or other for payment on account to the companies, and that is the reason for this Bill.
The Bill provides for revenue payments to be continued at one-third instead of one-half of the comparable ascertained revenue of the company, defined in the same way as in the 1946 Act. But the Bill ensures this time, not merely that if the revenue payment is less than the accumulated interest the balance will be paid to the company, but also that if it is more than the accumulated interest, repayment will have to be made by the company to the Government when the final settlement of compensation is made. In effect, it simply provides for interest


on account to be paid instead of being accumulated and then paid at the end when the capital compensation is finally settled. We have done it in this way by continuing the revenue payments simply because that is the most convenient amendment to make to achieve the object we have in mind.
It may be asked why we fix the revenue payments at one-third instead of one-half. The reason is because we think the one-third will closely approximate to the actual interest payments which will in fact be due and it would be common sense to try to fix it as close as possible so as to avoid payment of balances or repayment of excess which may be involved later on. I think it will amount to about £8 million for the first year, 1949. It will, of course, be much less for the succeeding year and still less, if there is necessity for it at all, in the following year, because of the payment of capital compensation.
No charge is involved as a result of this on the Exchequer and the money the Exchequer pays out to the colliery companies as the new revenue payments will be repaid by the National Coal Board. The National Coal Board suffers no loss as a result of this because in any case it would have to set the sums aside for future payments. Therefore we need have no anxiety about extra payments being made to anybody. It is simply a method of facilitating payment to enable the colliery companies to continue their business. I have tried to explain the nature of the Bill and the reasons for its introduction. In my view there is a clear case for this Bill in the circumstances, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Minister referred to costs incurred by colliery companies in "fighting for their rights." Could he tell us if these sums are lawyers' fees for appearing before the tribunal? Has he any estimate of what sums of compensation have been paid to these lawyers and does he wonder why the litigation has lasted for so long?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, I meant their legal rights under the 1946 Act. Certainly the sums would include such payments as lawyers' fees as well as accountants' fees and so on, but I have no estimate to give my hon. Friend.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: This Bill may be described as a Measure of petty and tardy justice. I wish the Minister had been as generous to the unfortunates of the gas industry as he has been to the coal industry. I should have said not "generous" but "just." There is no doubt that the unfortunate shareholders whose properties have been seized by the nationalisers deserve to be paid in accordance with the compensation schemes approved by this House and administered by the right hon. Gentleman, but this Bill is in a sense, an indictment of the presumptuous and amateurish planners who have wrought such great harm in the coal industry.
During the Debate on the principal Act that great lawyer Lord Reid most forcibly expressed doubts about the promise of the Government to complete most of the compensation agreements within two years. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury had an opportunity of listening to that speech. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) was once again a true and caustic prophet. Every criticism of the compensation procedure has been justified by events. My hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) shared the doubts of Lord Reid and of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough about the efficiency of the machinery set up to provide compensation.
But there was one great defender of this machinery and I am very glad to see him in his place here tonight. I refer, of course, to the right hon., amiable and perpetually mistaken Financial Secretary to the Treasury. What did he do? He rebuked my right hon. and hon. Friends for their doubts about the settlements being made in the majority of cases within two years. He told a trusting, not to say confiding House,
We have a Labour Government in office and that Government moves with speed.
Here is another quotation from the right hon. Gentleman:
It hopes and believes that well within the period"—
that is two years—


matters of this kind will be settled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 1049.]
The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now so fortunately translated to the Duchy of Lancaster, boomed his approval of that claim.
I shall not weary the House by any lengthy reminder that this Bill is another example of the failure of the Socialist Government to keep their promises. All the resources of platitude have long since been exhausted in dealing with this Government's manifold failures to fulfil their pledges. I do not of course accuse the Government of any desire to dishonour the pledges it made to coal shareholders and I honour the Minister for the way he defended the Government's attitude tonight. He did not get very much applause from the Mountain behind him, but he did his duty well. I merely wish to point out that in this, as in all other matters of administration, the Government have been altogether overoptimistic and thoroughly incompetent.
I do not want to rub in these facts. I have already reminded you, Mr. Speaker, that they are now platitudes on both sides of the House. It would really be the worst of platitudes to say that this Government are thoroughly incompetent; that is accepted by all. I wish to say, however, that by producing this Bill, which the Minister commended to the House tonight in the most agreeable fashion, he is of course censuring the foolish optimism and lavish promises of his right hon. Friends the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It must have been hard on the right hon. Gentleman, because the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is of course his political foster father, a position now usurped by a frostier gentleman, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We on this side of the House can only say "Ditto" to the well-deserved censure on the Financial Secretary made by the Minister. We realise that it was necessary to bring in this Bill because of the incompetence and the over-promising character of the right hon. Gentleman. It takes up a lot of time, and we would wish to be dealing with other matters. Nevertheless, I do not wish to rub it in too hard, but this is the sort of price we pay for the right hon., amiable but incompetent

gentleman. I hope that the Minister will do everything in his power to speed a settlement with the many thousands of shareholders of small means whose properties he has taken away.
I think that I speak on behalf of all my hon. Friends on this side of the House—[Laughter]—that is something no Minister can do—in saying that it would be quite ungenerous of me not to express some sympathy with the highly competent but wholly unfortunate officials of the Ministry of Fuel and Power who are struggling to bring some sort of order into the Heath Robinson machinery for compensation set up by Ministers opposite. Courtesy and fairness have marked all the doings of the civil servants who are working overtime to mop up the mess created by these Ministers in a hurry.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I am sorry that this Bill has been introduced, and had I thought it possible to get a measure of support I should have put down an Amendment that it be read this day six months. I am against an interim payment to mineowners. I was against it in 1948. I am against it in 1949.

Mr. Speaker: The principle of compensation is outside the scope of this Bill. This is a machinery Bill to provide how the existing compensation shall be paid. I must rule out of Order the attacking of the whole principle of compensation.

Mr. Gallacher: I think there was a decision taken to make an interim payment in 1948 because the compensation machinery was operating in a very creaky manner. Some one had put sand in the bearings and the compensation could not be settled. This Bill is to make an interim payment for 1949.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Get a copy of the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: I have done so. It states:
Section 22 (2) of that Act provides that the right to interim income is to be satisfied by making (as an addition to any amount …
and so forth. And also:
The present Bill provides for the making to colliery concerns and subsidiaries of payments in respect of 1949 …
That is what the Bill is for—to provide for the making of payments in 1949, I


am opposed to a payment being made in 1949. Surely I am entitled to oppose payments being made? If this Bill is not passed no payments can be made in 1949. The creaking machinery for compensation will still go on working. I do not want any payments made in 1949 so I do not wish this Bill to pass. Surely I am entitled to say that?
I have good reasons for saying that I am opposed to payments being made in 1949. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition—as presently constituted—said that the Minister was very generous—

Mr. Bracken: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gallacher: —and he wished that the Minister had been as generous to the gas companies.

Mr. Bracken: "Just."

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Gentleman said that later. It was an afterthought because he realised that he had "put his foot in it." He was knocking the bottom out of his own propaganda when he talked about the Minister being generous, but wished that he had been as generous to the gas companies. I should be very pleased if the Minister would be as generous or just to the Scottish miners. They have an amazing record of coal production. Yet, although they have a much higher production record per man-shift than is the case say in Durham or Northumberland, the miners there get 3s. 1d per day more.

Mr. Speaker: Output per man-shift is entirely outside the scope of this Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: I was stating that by way of illustration to attract, if possible, the generosity or justice of the Minister. It is an alarming fact that in those counties the miners have 3s. 1d. per day more than the Scottish miners. I commend that thought to the Minister.
We have a situation in this country under a Labour Government in which, as a result of these interim payments which were made last year and the interim payments which are to be made this year, the mineowners of this country, including the hon. Gentlemen opposite, are better off under nationalisation than they would have been if they had still owned their semi-bankrupt industry. I ask the Minister

to consider once again whether he should go ahead with this Bill. I am certain that he could make a gesture which would arouse the strongest possible support of the miners of this country and give a terrific impetus to coal production if he would stand up at that Box, get the Bill, tear it into pieces and throw it into the wastepaper basket.

7.48 p.m.

Colonel Lancaster: I should like to fill in one or two of the points which the Minister omitted in his statement to the House. The £32 million to which he referred is not the matter which in substance we are discussing tonight. That was on account of matters extraneous to the global sum. This interest payment is chiefly on account of the global sum which so far has not been settled. In the course of his remarks the Minister gave it as his opinion that this final settlement was likely to occur within a year. In the Committee stage of the Measure, when this matter was being discussed, I pointed out that two years, to which on that occasion the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had referred, was of course quite out of the question, and that the matter would be prolonged far beyond that. I must once again give it as my opinion that the year to which the Minister has referred on this occasion is most unlikely to see the completion of the next stage of this matter.
I think that the Minister, who introduced this Bill in a very amiable way, might at least have put it on record that nothing that has occurred so far in regard to the delay which has taken place has been on the part of either the colliery companies or the shareholders. They have been unable to do anything to expedite matters. The Minister explained the various stages which occur in the matter of the apportionment of this global sum. Stage three is the stage at which we have at present arrived; but even with regard to stage three, compensation units which have to be set up before stage three can play its part have not yet been settled. That, of course, is a matter for the Ministry and not for the colliery companies themselves. As I say, it would have been a little more generous on the part of the Minister if he had explained to the House that the delay, about which I do not complain unreasonably, is a delay on the part of the Ministry and


the valuation boards, and not in any way a delay on the part of the colliery companies or the people involved on behalf of the shareholders.
I think that the passage of this Bill may provide us with an opportunity of suggesting to the Minister and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite that they might suggest to some of their more enthusiastic supporters that all the statements being made up and down the country that the Coal Board would have been making a profit if it were not for compensation to the former owners, might, for the time being, be put on one side. In fact, no compensation of any sort has so far occurred. What has been paid out has been £32 million on account of matters outside the global sum, transactions relating to railway wagons, stocks and stores and the like, which in any case should have been paid much more quickly than they have been.

Mr. Gaitskell: Surely the hon. and gallant Member will agree that the Coal Board has in fact made revenue payments which are in place of interim income and which in fact are substantially above what the interest charge will eventually be?

Colonel Lancaster: We are talking at cross purposes. I am talking about the capital sum to which hon. Members refer when they make reference to the losses or profits which the Coal Board do or do not make. In fact, compensation, for a number of reasons, has not so far been paid, and we can only assume their attitude to be that unless this physical asset comes into the possession of the nation for nothing whatsoever by nationalization, it is impossible to make profits. As I say, no compensation so far has been paid. We on this side of the House are not unreasonably complaining of that fact, but we would say that it is incumbent upon hon. Members and others discussing the matter to hold it in reasonable proportion. When and if compensation is eventually paid, that might be a point pertaining to the matter. Meanwhile, it would be no bad thing if it were left out of the speeches of hon. Members.
I would once again like to give a warning that in existing circumstances one year will not suffice for the completion of this matter. I hope that the right

hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that it will be necessary as much in the next year as in this year to pay one-third of the interest on what will eventually accrue as some form of justice to the colliery companies and shareholders who meanwhile are waiting for what the Act says is their just due.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: In view of the complaints raised by hon. Members on the other side of the House about the delay, which is attributed to the Minister of Fuel and Power, I wish to put one question to the Minister. What period elapsed before the valuation was agreed upon in the regions? I am confident that has been one of the factors causing the delay. A large amount of time has been spent in trying to assess the valuation of the colliery companies in various districts. It has been no desire of the Minister or the miners in this House that it should be held up. We are anxious to clear up the matter in order that our men can understand the real position. I would therefore ask the Minister that straight question; what period elapsed between the vesting day and arriving at the valuation in the various districts throughout the British coalfields?

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I wish to start by declaring an interest. I may receive, in an indirect way, some of this compensation we are now discussing. That does give me some knowledge of the chaos on which we shall enter if we follow precisely what the Minister is saying. I consider that it is unfair to blame the Financial Secretary, because he was merely voicing what his leader—the present Secretary of State for War—was saying when he admitted, "We recognise the limitations and shortcomings in the full operation" This is no doubt one of the things of which he was thinking.
Behind this administration scheme, now admitted to be a bad one, that was the root cause. As the right hon. Gentleman says—and I agree with him—we must try to get this matter cleared up within two years. The whole reason for stopping the payment after two years was to try to hurry up the proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman did say on one occasion that it was to bring pressure to bear upon the


valuation boards, at least that was the question put to him by one of my right hon. Friends. He also imputed that it was to bring pressure on the colliery companies. I wish to suggest to the Minister that surely the root cause of the slowness still remains.
My criticism of this Bill is that there is nothing in it about the question of speeding up this arbitration, and in a moment I shall come to some suggestions about that. The Minister and the Government suggest that the valuation boards might be slow. The Minister suggested that the colliery companies might be slow, but we have not in point of fact heard the root cause, which is that his own Department is slow. Let me give some instances.
In Regulation 1345, which was subsequently amended by Regulation 1381 of 1949, a series of dates were set out on which various applications and objections should be lodged. But there were two periods when no limitation was given. The first was the making of the compensation unit. The making of the compensation unit is stating, in point of fact, what shall be valued; what the object is. That is directly within the responsibility of the Minister and his Department. It is done, I think, by the solicitor's branch of his Department. Until that branch states what is the compensation unit no valuation whatever can take place.
We are now practically three years from the vesting date. I am open to correction, but I would say that practically 90 per cent. of the colliery companies have not yet received their compensation unit. In other words, the Department has not done its job. We refer to the Financial Secretary, who says, "We hope to get it done in two years." Yet the Department itself has taken three years to take the initial step. With great respect, there is the fundamental danger and a danger which this Bill does nothing to rectify.
The second point is that the valuation boards, when eventually they get the compensation unit, have to create what is called draft valuation. In the same way as no time limit was placed on the Minister and his Department for the compensation unit, no time is placed upon the valuation boards for their draft

valuation. Whereas possibly we have waited for three years, it may well be that we shall wait for another three for the other, because there is no limit. Yet, when these regulations were made it was said that the colliery concerns would hold matters up. In some cases they are limited to one month, in others to two months and in another case to six weeks. The Minister where he allows any check, takes six months. The two vital places where time will be lost are the compensation unit and the creation of draft valuations.
When we come to the Committee stage I hope that the Minister will seriously consider accepting Amendments to put in a time limit so that we can have a time table. Then not only will the Minister be able to watch the activities of his own Department, but also he will be able to follow the activities of the valuation boards. A danger which he has not mentioned is that although a certain amount of work has been done upon the colliery T.S. assets, practically no work has been done on brickworks, land, buildings, coke ovens and other matters. I appreciate that compensation for those is not a T.S. asset and that does not come directly under this Bill, but the same people who have to value all other ancillary assets have also to value the T.S. assets.
The vista that I see is not one year. I am surprised that the Minister should say that this matter will be finished in one year. If this Bill goes through unamended and the regulations are not altered, I will make a prophecy—which is an unwise thing—that it will be three years before we get anywhere near the final stages. I suggest that the Minister should consider the introduction of a time limit. He has said that the matter will be completed within a year. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) also said from the Socialist Benches that he and his colleagues wanted the procedure to be speeded up. Let us have a time limit. We have had a Guillotine before. Let us have a reasonable time limit upon the Ministry and the Valuation Board as well as upon the colliery companies.
If we pass this Bill, who will gain by speed? I only propose to state the facts and not to draw conclusions: I leave that to the House. I understand that the Valuation Board is paid £15 a day.


Therefore, the more days that are taken, the more pounds will be spent. I leave it at that. The officials of the companies, the managing directors—of which I happen to be one—the directors, secretaries and other officials have jobs which will last as long as the colliery companies last. The longer the colliery company lasts—the longer the valuation takes—the longer are they secure in their jobs.
The shareholders who might go to a shareholders' meeting and demand money because dividends are withheld—and that was why the former Minister put this provision in the Act—are now to receive a Government security possibly of 3 per cent. repaid at par within three or four years. The professional men who are advising on both sides and appearing for the Valuation Board and the colliery companies, and also the mining engineers appreciate that this is the last occasion upon which they will be able to deal with private companies. Once all these valuations are completed, their only future is as civil servants with the National Coal Board.
Finally, there are the Government officials themselves. All I will say is that nobody really relishes the great number of extra burdens which are being put upon them. Therefore, who is to gain if we take away this pressure? I suggest practically nobody. Who will lose? I suggest the taxpayer, on the one hand, and the consumer of coal, on the other. The longer the valuations drag out, the greater will be the cost to the Ministry. The Minister cannot say, "If I employ just one man to do a job for 10 years, that will be quicker than employing 10 men to do the job in one year." If he said that, it would be nonsense.
Let us get this matter dealt with quickly. The longer the proceedings take, the greater is the expense which must fall upon the Ministry and the taxpayer, and the longer will the Coal Board have to fight on their side. Therefore, their costs will go up and, indirectly, the consumer will suffer. The responsibility lies directly upon the Minister and upon this House. It is a very real responsibility which I do not think the Minister acknowledged when he spoke. I hope that my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite will support me if I put down Amendments in order to see that a time table is introduced to speed up not only the Minister

but the Valuation Board and the colliery companies themselves.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: I listened to the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) with interest when he suggested that in our speeches we ought not to refer to the interest charges in the annual balance sheet. If nationalisation is always to be derided by hon. Gentlemen opposite, then it is legitimate to suggest that, instead of the industry showing a loss, we are actually carrying a big burden of interest in our annual balance sheet which goes to the ex-owners of mines.
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), who is a good exponent on behalf of the owners—and we give him credit for that—talked about the chaos which existed and referred to the creaky machinery of compensation. It is well known to us in the coalfields that, instead of mine owners fighting the miners, they are now fighting among themselves about what they shall have from the global figure allocated to them. We know that when they were adding, up their assets, old plant was renovated, right down to every nut and bolt, and put in the estimate. In the last six months we have seen that the ex-agents have had to go to their old collieries to help the companies to get as much as they can of the global figure. They are fighting among themselves. That is why there has been delay on this issue.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) that we ought to fix a time limit and say to the ex-owners, "If you have not settled your internal fights by a certain date, we will have to consider what we shall do on this issue." I believe that if the Minister takes that line, he will get a quicker settlement, because the ex-owners will close their ranks in fear that they might lose something.

Mr. P. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman's argument might be right if the colliery owners were allowed even to start fighting among themselves. The trouble is that the Minister has not even blown the whistle yet. He has not created the compensation unit. To blame the coal owners is rather unfair. The delay rests entirely with the Minister.

Mr. Blyton: It is remarkable that the owners could fight and get the global figure fixed at £164 million but that when it is to be allocated it appears that they cannot agree among themselves how much they should draw. The owners must be told that unless they get this matter settled quickly, the Government intend to take action to force them to make a settlement. If the Government took that line, I say—knowing the owners as I do—that they would close their ranks within a week and settle this problem themselves.
This question of compensation has created a lot of bitterness in the ranks of the miners. Let there be no mistake about that. As a party we agreed to pay reasonable compensation, but I think we paid too much.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I am afraid the hon. Gentleman cannot go into that, because it has been decided, and this is purely and simply a matter which arises from the inability of various Government Departments and ex-owners to settle claims arranged under the 1946 Act.

Mr. Blyton: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but my opinion still stands. The position is quite a simple one. In these interim payments, it must be remembered that we must pay the ex-owners for pits which have been closed as uneconomic and of no use to the nation, and the Bill says nothing about that. I advise the right hon. Member for Bournemouth to tell his friends the coalowners to get this settled—

Mr. Bracken: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should refer to my friends the coalowners. So far as I know, I have no friends among the coalowners, and I have never in my life had a share in any English coalmining companies. I object to that sneering remark. We are here to do our public duty, and, if it comes to this question of being influenced financially, lots of hon. Members opposite are financed by the miners.

Mr. Blyton: I am not afraid to declare my interest in this matter. I am here to represent the miners and the working classes in my area, and therefore I shall not regard it as a reflection but rather as an honour to stand here representing the interests of the poor downtrodden miners, who were trodden on for so long

by hon. Members opposite. I hope that, since the right hon. Member for Bournemouth is leading the Opposition in every coal Debate and every time argues the point of view of the coalowners, his friends will regard it as a compliment that he is defending their interests in that field.
I want to conclude on this note. If the coalowners are falling out among themselves, let them arrive quickly at a share-out of the spoils which have been presented to them, and, if not, let the Minister take courage and tell them that, if the matter is not settled by a specific date, we shall put the necessary legislation into operation to settle it for them.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I confess that I had some feeling of alarm when hearing the Minister explain what sums are involved in this Bill. He pointed out that compensation would be paid to companies in respect of costs incurred in fighting for their rights, and when I pressed him he said that these included legal costs. I suggest that, when we look at that statement, it affords some explanation why this matter has been dragging on, and it may give some explanation why it will continue to drag on, not for five years, but for eternity.
The legal costs incurred by the corn-panics and the fees of counsel are going to come out of the costs incurred by the companies, I presume in addition to the other costs, and when I asked the Minister what estimate he had of the amount, he said that he did not have an estimate of the legal costs which we shall have to pay. I suggest that, when the legal fraternity start discussing questions of compensation, here is a trail which they will follow to the utmost unit, and that, instead of this Bill being called the Coal Industry (No. 2) Bill, it should be called the Coal Industry (Compensation for Lawyers) (No. 1) Bill.

Mr. Bracken: What about the Attorney-General?

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Attorney-General, but I am not attacking him.
The right hon. Gentleman has also referred to the case put up by Lord Reid for the coalowners, and I have no doubt that if Lord Reid had still been a Member of the House of Commons—of course,


he has been nationalised without protest and has become a judge—I know from experience of Scottish matters that he would have wrung tears of anguish about the tardy injustice to the shareholders. I represent coalowners who are coming in for compensation under this Bill, and, like Oliver Twist, they are coming for more. I have a great deal of human sympathy even for coal shareholders. When I came into this House, I had just fought a by-election in which the nationalisation of the mines was the issue and in which this question of compensation to coalowners was one of the burning topics.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Both Mr. Speaker and I have pointed out that hon. Members cannot carry that line any further.

Mr. Hughes: I am coming down to the machinery now—that is, the machinery as it affects the compensation to those shareholders to whom the right hon. Member for Bournemouth referred. The right hon. Gentleman referred to quite poor shareholders, but I can assure him that I have looked very carefully over the lists of shareholders of these companies—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman does not obey the Ruling of the Chair, he will not be allowed to resume his speech. The hon. Gentleman has read the Bill, and he must know that it is purely and simply a question of extending a certain time for the payment of interest on sums which have already been fixed. The delay is accounted for by different speakers in different ways, and that is all right, but the hon. Gentleman cannot go into the question of the shareholders.

Mr. Hughes: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I was enticed away by the wiles of the right hon Member for Bournemouth.
May I suggest that, during the Committee stage, we should look very carefully into the Clauses of this Bill, because under its machinery the coalowners are able to claim for legal costs incurred, and it might be possible to reduce the expenses incurred under this legislation. I believe the matter might be speeded up and that large amounts are likely to go into the pockets of the legal profession if it is not speeded up.

8.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): If anything, this Debate has proved one thing, and that is that the Government were absolutely right when they decided not to proceed in subsequent nationalisation measures to secure compensation on the same basis as in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), in his usual facetious way, dealt with the matter and complained of the delay. From time to time, and particularly on gas, the right hon. Gentleman has been inviting the Government to base the compensation in those other industries on that model, which would have caused a good deal more delay. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has informed the right hon. Gentleman, on many occasions subsequent to the time when that quotation was made by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, that the method of dealing with compensation of the coalowners was indeed a very slow process and perhaps a costly one.
I do not suppose for a moment that the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) was suggesting that the very eminent men who constitute the Valuation Board were deliberately hanging back to provide themselves with fees. They meet three or four times a month, and they are paid the professional fee that is normally paid for that type of work. It is true that the task is taking longer than we envisaged when the principal Act was passed, and the real issue is whether we shall do anything about it or do nothing about it. If we do nothing about it, it seems to me that the coalowners will get no payment at all until the final compensation is given. This Bill is an endeavour to be fair about that, and so, until the final compensation is fixed, these interim payments will go on, though, it is perfectly true, on a somewhat modified basis.
I would assure my hon. Friends on this side of the House that it does not mean extra compensation to the coalowners or any addition, of course, to the global sum, because what is paid is taken into consideration when the final compensation is made. I accept right away that the whole of the delay is not on the part of the colliery companies. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) asked a question; he did not make the statement, but I am


sure he knows the answer, that some two and a half years elapsed before the Central Valuation Board completed its job. There were a number of reasons for that. The setting up of the Board was delayed; and then there were discussions, and it was two and a half years before the job was done.
The machinery in this matter is obviously fairly lengthy. After all, the compensation units to which the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) referred are simple in themselves to prepare, but the inventories to be checked are, of course, quite colossal. It may be of interest to the House to know that the average inventory is 100 sheets of foolscap, full of detail, and the longest, some 250,000 sheets. Inventories of that size cannot be checked in a short space of time. The only people who can check them are the people responsible for running the mines. But they have a very big job to do in running the mines and getting the coal, and so on. Inevitably therefore, this work has to be fitted in, and hence the delay.
It would not help very much if we accepted the advice of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) because what is not paid in 1949 will be paid later. There is no saving, and it does not help the case of the Communist Party if they think that by opposing this Bill they will avoid the payment of compensation.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not possible, if the machine creaked long enough, that there might be a new Government who decided to introduce legislation to withdraw the £164 million?

Mr. Robens: If the hon. Member for West Fife believes that a Communist Government will be elected for this country it would seem that he could believe almost anything. I would not rely on that myself and oppose this Bill on the basis that perhaps next year there will be a Government who will go back on what this Government did in the original Bill.
Quite clearly there is delay, but very necessarily a good deal of time has to be taken up with all this checking, and I am perfectly certain that the Mining Association would not want this speeded up to the extent that the job was not done efficiently or properly. We cannot be expected to rush it and not make a job

of it As my right hon. Friend indicated so clearly, this Bill extends the payments over a period of years. My right hon. Friend did not say that it would be completed in a year; he said it would be completed, or words to that effect, in about a year. It may take at least a year or a little longer. With this Bill, the payments will at least be made; without it, no payments can be made. Therefore, it seems to me that we must accept the Bill and be fair and reasonable to those people whose properties have been taken over because of the nationalisation Measure.

Mr. Bracken: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I correct something he said? He assumed that I was in favour of Stock Exchange values as compensation. Certainly not I regard them as a gross swindle.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY (No. 2) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees). [King's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as "the new Act") to provide for the making to colliery concerns and subsidiaries of such concerns of further income payments, it is expedient to authorise:—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase in the sums issuable thereout under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1946"), which is attributable to the making of payments under the new Act;
(b) the raising under the National Loans Act, 1939, of any money required for providing or replacing sums authorised to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund by paragraph (a) of this Resolution
(c) the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Minister of Fuel and Power under subsection (1) of section twenty-eight of the Act of 1946 by way of recouping the Crown expenses incurred by virtue of the provisions of the new Act; and
(d) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums so received and their application in accordance with subsection (2) of the said section twenty-eight.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HOSPITAL OFFICERS (WHITLEY COUNCIL REPRESENTATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

8.26 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I wish to draw attention to the refusal of the Minister of Health to negotiate with the National Federation of Hospital Officers. I think that in the course of the discussion it will appear that an injustice has been done, but I think it will also appear that there is some serious defect in the principles governing the constitution of the Whitley Council. The National Federation of Hospital Officers was formed in January, 1948, and was registered as a trade union on 8th April, 1948. It was prescribed in its constitution that only administrative, clerical, professional and technical workers in hospitals should be eligible for membership, and that its activities were to be limited to the interests of hospital services and hospital officers. It was further provided that its activities should be strictly non-political.
I make the point straight away that there is no other trade union in existence which satisfies the conditions I have mentioned. The reasons for its formation were that a number of hospital officers felt that the creation of the National Health Service would substantially alter their position, and they had regard to the statement made by the Minister that their terms of employment would be centrally determined and that for this purpose Whitley Councils would be set up. They also felt that their collective advice would be helpful to the Minister in the interests of the hospital service. The membership of this new organisation grew rapidly, especially in the administrative and clerical field. At the present moment, in that field—that is to say, in the administrative and clerical field—they have approximately 3,500 members out of a total membership of about 6,500, but it is the 3,500 with whom we are concerned.

Mr. Haydn Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is no machinery under the Whitley Council whereby these people could be represented otherwise than by this new organisation? I speak as a governor of

a teaching hospital. Surely they have all the machinery open to them for every grade. I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman's argument is that they had no other way open except by this new organisation.

Sir J. Mellor: The hon. Member will appreciate that it would have been open to them, had they so wished, to have joined one or other of the trade unions which were represented on the functional council, but for a variety of reasons, which I will give if any hon. Member so desires, they preferred to join the new federation. I should be glad if the hon. Member will interrupt again if I do not cover his point sufficiently as I proceed.
I would make this point with reference to the 3,500 administrative and clerical members of this federation: No other trade union has so many administrative and clerical hospital officers in its membership. At the end of 1947 the Minister of Health set up as part of the Whitley system in the National Health Service what was called the Administrative and Clerical Functional Council. What he did was to convene all the organisations which apparently claimed to represent any of the persons affected, and, having convened them, passed to them the ball and said, "Set up your own staff side and get on with it." That is more or less what happened. The result was that there was a staff side of this functional council set up consisting of 11 trade unions and one professional body. So far so good.
I have no complaints up to this point. But trouble soon arose. On 9th July, 1948, the new federation, the National Federation of Hospital Officers, having by that time achieved a membership of 2,000 persons whose affairs would be dealt with by this functional council, wrote to the secretary of the staff side applying for seats on the functional council. Having regard to their membership, which by that time was at least comparable with that of the only three bodies which had any substantial membership in this category, it seemed to be a reasonable proposal. They did not get an answer for some time, but on 8th October, 1948, a letter was received from the secretary of the staff side rejecting the application in these terms:
On consideration of the request I was instructed to inform you that the application was not approved.


He does not give any reasons or any sort of explanation, and no inquiry whatsoever had been made by the existing staff side of the National Federation of Hospital Officers as to their membership or the character of their organization; indeed, no inquiry whatsoever had been made.

Mr. Haydn Davies: The hon. Gentleman asked me to interrupt whenever I wanted to. I should like to ask him what evidence he has that this claim was rejected without any inquiry whatsoever. My evidence is that there was a thorough inquiry.

Sir J. Mellor: I have received my information from the National Federation of Hospital Officers. They have sent me the correspondence from which it is evident that there was no inquiry whatsoever as to their membership at this stage from the staff side. Later on the Minister did make inquiries, and I shall come to that in due course.

Mr. Haydn Davies: I am sorry to interrupt again, but the hon. Member asked me to interrupt whenever I thought he was wrong. What evidence has he for saying that this was turned down without full inquiry?

Sir J. Mellor: The evidence, I think, is quite sufficient. The fact was that they did not ask the National Federation of Hospital Officers for any particulars whatsoever of their organisation. That is evidence that they made no inquiries. At any rate, if they made inquiries, why on earth did they not ask the National Federation of Hospital Officers for information? If the hon. Member has any explanation of that, I am quite prepared to give way again. At any rate, the application was rejected without any explanation whatsoever and without any inquiry, at least from the Federation. The next step, therefore, was that the Federation appealed to the Minister to see that they had fair treatment. If they were not to be given seats on the staff side of the functional council, then they asked the Minister to grant them the right to have separate negotiations direct with the Minister. The attitude of the Minister throughout and at this stage in particular, was that the composition of the

staff side was entirely a matter for the staff side itself. I shall have some comment to make on that later, but that was his attitude.
However, the Minister apparently made some approach to the staff side with regard to the possibility of seats being allotted to the Federation because, on 11th August, 1949, the Minister wrote to the Federation that the staff still refused. There is no indication in that letter that they had given any reason for their continued refusal. He added that separate negotiations were being considered. Then the Minister asked for particulars of the membership of the Federation and he also asked if he could have access to their records in case he desired to inspect them. In reply to that, on 5th September this year, the Federation wrote to the Minister saying that their membership was then 3,065 administrative and clerical officers of hospitals in the health services, and they also said that they would welcome any inspection of their records by the Minister.
After that the Minister wrote this letter, dated 21st September last:
The Minister has taken into account all the circumstances, including the figure of the present membership of the Federation, which was supplied in your letter of 5th September, and has reached the conclusion that he would not be warranted in entering into separate discussions with the Federation on matters coming within the scope of the administrative and clerical staffs' Whitley Council.
I complained that the staff side gave no reason. Again, the Minister did not give any reason for refusing separate negotiations. Quite naturally, the Federation thought that a most unreasonable attitude, and wrote to the Minister asking the number of members which would be necessary before it was regarded as appropriate that these separate negotiations should take place; to which a letter dated 10th October was returned. I apologise to the House for having to read it. It is not an easy letter to read, and not an easy one for anyone to follow, because of its tortuous terms. The Minister wrote:
You will appreciate that before agreeing to a step which might create difficulties in relation to the Whitley Council, through which the Minister at present receives advice on the salaries and conditions of service of the administrative and clerical staff, and towards the establishment of which the Minister himself took the initiative, the Minister would need to be convinced that the circumstances were


such that if the Federation's request were refused a substantial injustice would be done, in that a large proportion of the staff concerned would be deprived of a voice in these matters. Direct comparisons between the Federation's membership and the membership of individual associations represented on the Whitley Council are not, therefore, completely relevant.
I do not know what is meant by "completely relevant." Surely, a thing is either relevant or not relevant; but if that is not relevant, what is relevant in this matter? I hope the Minister will tell us. Surely the whole basis of the thing should be the appropriate membership. I really hope the Parliamentary Secretary will explain what the Minister meant by "not completely relevant."
The letter continues:
It is open to the Federation to repeat their application at a later date, when it will be reconsidered in the light of the circumstances that then apply, including the Federation's figures.
If the figures which had already been given do show that this Federation had more appropriate members than any other body represented upon the functional council—

Mr. Haydn Davies: No.

Sir J. Mellor: The hon. Member will doubtless have an opportunity of denying it later on. If those figures are not sufficient to satisfy the Minister that this Federation has a good case, what figures would do? I always understood that the Whitley Council system had worked satisfactorily. I must say I have had rather a shock in realising the attitude, at least of the Ministry of Health, with regard to the system, because it seems to me that if Whitley Councils are all like this, so much the worse for all concerned.
Just consider what happened. The Minister—I am not complaining of his initial action in the least—convened a certain number of bodies which represented a certain proportion of the people involved, and invited them to form a staff side, which they did. The moment they had done it, he said, "The future constitution and conduct of the staff side is entirely a matter for the staff side itself." In fact he has created a closed shop, with no mandate from anyone in the service except their own members.
I do not want to go into the details of the various trade unions and the one professional body which form the staff side,

although I have the information here. If any hon. Member wishes me to do so, I shall be very pleased. The fact remains—and I would insist only upon this—that on the staff side there were three bodies with a fairly substantial membership, and an appropriate membership, but none of them equal to the present membership of the National Federation of Hospital Officers.

Dr. Morgan: Why does the hon. Gentleman say that? That statement is not true. Is he saying that there is no individual union represented on the staff side of the Whitley Council which has a larger membership than the National Federation of Hospital Officers? If he is making that statement, it simply is not true.

Sir J. Mellor: I am referring only to that part of the membership whose affairs come under the review of the functional council, that is to say, the administrative and clerical council for the whole service. One of the unions which is one side of this functional council is the Transport and General Workers' Union, but I think that the appropriate membership is almost negligible.

Mr. Haydn Davies: Has the hon. Gentleman heard of ambulance drivers?

Sir J. Mellor: They are not administrative or clerical officers, and therefore their terms and conditions of service would not come within the purview of the functional council, so that is an entirely irrelevant interruption.
The other point is that the National Federation has a larger membership than any body which has a seat on this council. There are altogether about 40,000 hospital officers of the administrative and clerical category, and I think that it is rather a pity that these bodies which are established on the staff side, and which represent only about 8,000 out of this 40,000, should try to keep the remainder from joining any other union. It seems a curiously jealous thing to do. These existing bodies were not appointed by the Minister; therefore, they can only have been self-appointed. They are only responsible for their own members. They are forming a tight vested interest. If no other union is to be eligible for a seat on the staff side of this functional council, it seems to


me to be rather a shocking denial of choice to a large number of persons who are not yet represented. Surely the Minister is not seeking to restrict their choice of trade union. If he takes the line that the constitution of the staff side is to be entirely a matter for the staff side itself and is going to leave it there, there is only one way out of the difficulty and that is for him to grant to the National Federation of Hospital Officers the right to separate negotiation direct with himself.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Burden: I rise on behalf of the trade unions and professional associations now forming the staff side to ask the Minister not to accede to the request submitted by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). I want to make this quite clear in regard to the position of those trade unions and professional workers. As early as February of last year, these organisations issued a manifesto or statement dealing with the problem in the following terms. I hope that the House will forgive me quoting this statement because it is, I think, of importance that we should get this in the right perspective from the beginning of the problem. This is what they said:
The following trade unions and organisations have learnt that moves are being made to launch a new organisation under the description of 'The National Federation of Hospital Officers.' The majority of hospital officers are already attached to one or other of these long-established organisations, all of which in their appropriate spheres can adequately cater for their existing members in the new situation arising out of the Health Service Act, and for any staffs, and particularly those in voluntary hospitals, which have not hitherto been within the scope of collective bargaining. A new body such as that projected can only gain membership at the expense of the existing organisations. Initiated, as we believe, from above"—
note, "from above"—
by certain persons who are or have been associated with the voluntary hospitals it is unlikely to strike any roots, but it can only arouse a just resentment in the existing organisations which, in the teeth of no little opposition in the past, have followed the principles of collective bargaining, now to be followed under the Act, and have already gained much for hospital staffs.
Its impact is disruptive of their present effort to bring the new Service into being without any kind of friction among employees. But, above all, at this juncture a move of this kind is

seriously prejudicial to the work already done and the further effort yet to be made in getting into running order the new bargaining machinery for the National Service.
Within the last month or two the existing organisations, at the invitation of the Minister, have had a series of consultations on the new machinery to deal with pay and service conditions, and by a remarkable display of co-operation and good will have reached agreement with the Minister and among themselves on the main principles, and have already in a number of cases agreed on their representation on the staff sides of the several functional councils of which it will be comprised.
It has been reported to us that the promoters of the movement have put it out that the Minister considers that certain grades of the Service should belong to a separate organisation. We have sought and received an assurance that that is not so. We have all long experience in our organisations of hospital staffs, and we shall continue to consult each other with a view to effective action. We do not intend to see our existing work undone or our further work prejudiced. It is our policy to co-operate with the Minister and with each other in implementing the great legislative benefits of the Health Act to the best public advantage, and to secure all that is justly due to all officers and servants who will serve the public in this sphere.

Sir J. Mellor: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could give the House his estimate of the total number of persons whose affairs are dealt with by this Administrative and Clerical Functional Council, and the aggregate number of members of those bodies who have seats on the staff side?

Mr. Burden: The unions concerned, as the hon. Baronet will see when I state the organisations, cater for and cover, and have within the scope of their membership, the overwhelming majority of the staffs concerned.

Sir J. Mellor: I did not ask what was within the scope of their membership, but how many members they had.

Mr. Burden: I have not the precise membership of each of the organisations, but I can let the hon. Member have it a little later on.

Sir J. Mellor: I do not want it later on. I want it now.

Mr. Burden: These are the organisations concerned: The Association of Insurance Committee Officers, the Civil Service Clerical Association, the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union, the National Association of Administrators of Local Government Establishments, the


National Association of Clerks to Insurance Committees, the National Association of Local Government Officers, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, the National Union of Public Employees, the Society of Civil Servants, and the Transport and General Workers Union, comprising the clerical and supervisory staffs.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: As we are dealing with an entirely new situation since the National Health Service Act has come into being, can the hon. Member give an estimate of the number of voluntary hospital staff workers who are covered by the unions he has mentioned?

Mr. Burden: The hon. Member has asked for it, and my answer gives a cast-iron reply to the case which has been submitted for this new organisation. They claim that they represent 90 per cent. of the chief, and possibly the deputy-chief, administrators of teaching hospitals. That is the claim they put forward. This is quite a small group. There are only some 22 undergraduate and 14 postgraduate teaching hospitals in the country. Therefore, it will be seen what an infinitesimal number of persons they can claim to represent, unless they attempt to try to poach members of existing organisations.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the hon. Member explain what he is talking about? It is perfectly true that the National Federation of Hospital Officers has 17 members out of the total of 22 chief administrative officers of undergraduate teaching hospitals. Is he suggesting that that is their total interest among the persons whose affairs are to be dealt with by the functional council?

Mr. Burden: I say so very definitely, because the overwhelming majority of the staffs are already members of the existing trade unions. Perhaps I may be allowed to continue.
The staff side trade union and professional organisations were already acting as negotiating bodies before the National Health Service Act, 1946, was passed. As the hon. Baronet has rightly said, they were invited to meetings at the Ministry of Health in October and November, 1947, and were asked to agree to the setting up of the new functional councils. The administrative and clerical staff side

was constituted on 7th November, 1947, and the hon. Baronet will agree as stated in his speech, that the National Federation of Hospital Officers did not exist on that date.
In accordance with National Whitley practice—and this is where the Minister is fundamentally right—another organisation can obtain admission to the National Whitley Council only with the consent of the existing staff side. That is a normal National Whitley Council procedure, and the Minister would be departing from it if he adopted any other practice.

Sir J. Mellor: Does the hon. Member mean to tell the House that however large the representation of a new organisation may be, it ought not to be admitted to the staff side, unless the existing members of the staff side consent.

Mr. Burden: That is a purely hypothetical question; I am dealing with facts as they exist. A case founded upon an imaginary position requires no answer.
The existing bodies have spent many years in building up the conditions of service from which hospital staff are now benefiting. As a matter of fact, the salary scales at present enjoyed by hospital staffs were negotiated, in the main, by the National Association of Local Government Officers with the Local Authorities National Joint Council. If there is one weakness in the present administration it is that there are too many organisations in existence today.
Now I come to a charge which I wish to make: it is felt that this Federation is not a bona fide trade union, but a counter trade union organisation, what we would have called, in the old days, in the railway service, a goose club. Its sponsors—and here I challenge contradiction—were the chief administrative officers of certain ex-voluntary hospitals, most of whom were known to be opponents of trade union organisation in their hospitals before the introduction of National Health Service. Propaganda material was issued from the offices of the British Hospitals Association, the recognised association of voluntary hospitals.

Sir J. Mellor: These gentlemen were not in the least opposed to trade unionism. What they were opposed to, and what is reflected in the constitution of the


new Federation, was political trade unionism.

Mr. Haydn Davies: Can the hon. Baronet tell us whether any of these administrative officers tried to get out of any trade union organisation and form another trade union, because of political pressure inside their hospital because, if so, I have never heard of it.

Sir J. Mellor: At the beginning of my speech I gave an account of the formation of this body. I made it quite clear.

Mr. Davies: I think the hon. Baronet should withdraw that charge, which is a grave reflection on the hospitals of this country and particularly on the people he is now championing.

Mr. Burden: I understood that the hon. Baronet was suggesting that most if not all existing trade unions covering hospital services were political organisations. If so, that is not true. Many of them, if not the majority, have no political fund of any kind.

Sir J. Mellor: I never made that suggestion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] No, I did not suggest that they were all political trade unions. Some are and some are not, and I am prepared to give details of those which are and those which are not.

Mr. Burden: If these gentlemen object to political trade unionism surely there is plenty of opportunity for them to become members of trade unions or professional associations which have no avowed political objects. I have no doubt that the funds of Lord Woolton, for example, have been built up by so-called non-political contributions.

Mr. Haydn Davies: What about the B.M.A.?

Mr. Burden: There can be no doubt that the opposition which existing trade unions and professional organisations have to this new body is not confined to those within the staff side of the Council. Professional bodies such as the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and the Institute of Hospital Administrations are not political organisations. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that?

Sir J. Mellor: No. Surely the hon. Gentleman knows quite well that it is

not a trade union at all; it is an education body to which a number of trade unions, who are now members of the Federation, belong, because of its educational functions. All those members of the Institute who are now members of the Federation have repudiated the Institute as a negotiating body, and wish their cases to be dealt with by the Federation.

Mr. Burden: If the hon. Member were not so elastic in getting up and down I might get on with my sentence.

Sir J. Mellor: The hon. Member challenged me.

Mr. Burden: I was saying that the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, the Institute of Hospital Administrators and the Institute of Hospital Almoners have expressed themselves as opposed to this new body. I hope I may be allowed to submit some evidence on that from notes in the "Local Government Chronicle," which, the hon. Gentleman would agree with me, has some weight. This is what it said in February, 1948:
Shortly before going to Press, we were informed that steps are being taken to establish a new trades union under the title of the National Federation of Hospital Officers to cover those who are within the new national hospital service. This is certainly startling, because as everyone knows there is not only a National Association of Local Government Officers, but nine other unions which have in the past effectively catered for all the people in question. Amongst these nine other unions are the Transport and General Workers Union, the National Union of Public Employees, the General and Municipal Workers and others whose work in the past has been beyond all praise. At times, in the face of strong opposition, they have by a process of collective bargaining gained substantial and enduring benefits for their members. It would not be too much to say there is no one who will be employed under the National Health Scheme who would be without representation by an existing union. There is not only, as it seems to us, no need for any new body to be established, but the competition and the conflicting activities of such a body would gravely prejudice all the good work that has been done in the past by the other unions. What is not clear to us at the moment is from whom the suggestion comes that this new association should be formed. Anyone with the most elementary knowledge of medical and hospital administration knows that there is an appropriate union, active and well-informed, to cover every type of employee. Beyond this point we would, at the moment, not go, but we think this of such general interest and importance that further and more detailed enquiries must be made so that the exact nature of this proposal may be


ascertained and the extent to which it will conflict with the existing associations if it is established.
I wish to say a word or two—

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Would the hon. Member say from what he was quoting?

Mr. Burden: "The Local Government Chronicle." I thought I had given the title.
I have before me a copy of a letter from this organisation, the National Federation of Hospital. Officers. It is from the North-East Metropolitan Region, and I hope I am not giving gratuitous advertisement to this, and to something which is suggested in the letter. It is dated July, 1949. It says:
Dear—
name left out.
At a meeting of the North-East Metropolitan Region of the Federation held at St. Bartholomews Hospital on Monday, 11th July, which was opened with an address by Mr."—
so and so—
methods were discussed by which funds could be raised by the region to tide the Federation over its temporary financial difficulties. Several suggestions were put forward, but they were not considered sufficiently profitable to help the Federation to any appreciable extent. Mr."—
so and so—
stated that the Manchester Region had decided to raise £200"—
Two hundred pounds!—
towards the fund, and in view of this he sincerely hoped that the North-East Region would be able to arrange some scheme among themselves to exceed this figure. A member suggested that the only way to achieve any substantial amount would be to organise a sweepstake"—

Sir J. Mellor: Would the hon. Member allow me? Is this not a private letter?

Mr. Burden: This was met with general approval and a committee was immediately formed to organise and run a sweepstake on the Cesarewitch which is run in October. The committee is confident that it will result in handing over a handsome sum to the Federation. But we need your co-operation to dispose of as many books as possible and I am enclosing a book … when you have disposed of your books please send them to … from whom an acknowledgment will be sent.
We have had difficulties in raising trade union money in the past, but I have never known any reputable trade union attempting

to raise funds for its normal activities by running a sweepstake. That gives some idea, I think, of the status of this "spoof" organisation. I am sorry I have taken up so much time, but in the main it was due to the number of not quite friendly interjections from hon. Members on the other side of the House.

Mr. Linstead: Before the hon. Member sits down, as he is acting as the spokesman of what I might call the other side, I wish to ask him a question. I think that he is proposing that the staff side shall be increased by co-option. That is a very difficult case for him, because essentially this should be a democratic machine. I would ask him to justify in a few sentences the maintaining of the co-optive element and how it is possible to get some dealings with the co-optive element which will be truly representative of the staff concerned.

Mr. Burden: If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in answer to that point, I would say that I never have suggested any co-option. What I did say was that the staff side, which existed at the time the Council was set up, is a body to determine whether any other organisations should be brought within the scope of the staff side of this Council. I said that in the opinion of the staff side the existing organisations provided full and adequate representation for all covered by the Council.

9.15 p.m.

Lord John Hope: I wish to comment on two points made by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden). First, I think that to raise money by means of a sweepstake is a good deal more desirable, whatever the cause may be, than a political levy. My second comment concerns the observation of the hon. Member—an observation which, of course, he was bound to make—that there were represented on this council sufficient trade unions to deal with those with whom we are concerned in this Debate tonight. He mentioned, among many, one or two unions whose very nature I should have thought lent colour to the case which the hon. Baronet raised. He mentioned the National Association of Local Government Officers and also the National Union of Public


Employees. He knows as well as anybody else that both those organisations offer membership to anyone in the employ of a public authority, from the town clerk downwards, and I believe I am right in saying that the National Association of Local Government Officers also covers the gas, electricity and water undertakings.

Mr. Burden: For the sake of accuracy, it must not go on record that the National Association of Local Government Officers admit into membership everybody in those services. There is a level below which they do not admit people. Broadly speaking, they take in the clerical, professional, technical and administrative staffs.

Lord John Hope: All I can say is that these organisations were mentioned by the hon. Member to strengthen his own case, but I do not think that they did that, for the reason which I have given. I want to return to the point raised by the hon. Baronet—a point which was ignored by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield—in connection with the refusal of the Minister to allow separate negotiation. The point which must be answered concerns the question of numbers. I note that the Minister did not say that numbers are, or were, irrelevant in this case, although in the last letter which the hon. Baronet quoted there appeared to be some attempt to run out on those lines. There were two letters, both of which were quoted, before the last letter. Both asked specifically for numbers and the matter was thought to be so important that the second letter in effect, said, "If we are not quite sure that your numbers are accurate, do you mind if we come and poke about among your books just to see whether you are right or whether you are wrong?" That is what it came to.
There was never any suggestion that the claim of this Federation was bogus in any way in terms of strength. Presumably, why the Minister wanted to know how many people wished to join the union was because he wished to measure up the strength of the claim of these people. I hope that we shall get an answer on this question of the relevance of numbers. At the same time, I hope that the Minister will let us know how many people would have to be on the strength of this Federation before the Minister would allow it the right of

separate negotiation. Finally, I wish to say that if ever I heard a tale of sour grapes, it was the tale narrated by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield who, in jovial mood, is about to leave the Chamber. If ever I heard a tale of dirty work by the Government, it was this one.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Hardy: I should like to say that I consider that the opening statement in this Debate was most misleading, just as the notices sent out by the Federation of Hospital Officers were misleading. I had several communications from these people, who sought this representation and who pointed out in a circular letter that they did not desire to belong to a political trade union. I replied to these people and gave them the name of an organisation, and told them that, if they had no interest in politics and had no desire to discuss politics in any form, they could contract out of the political levy.
In view of the play that is being made by these people, who may be looked upon in some quarters as the aristocrats of the hospital service, and may even be the people referred to by the Conservative Party Conference when it talked about Conservative trade unionists, I want to state the name of one trade union which for 40 years has been catering for the interests of hospital staffs and no other—the Confederation of Health Service Employees. If these people had been particularly interested in the trade union movement, I have no doubt that they would have made some effort to join long ago.
After all that we have heard tonight, I think it should be stated that we have only had administrative and clerical staff in hospitals since 1947; we never had them before. It is going to be a difficult matter if we are to take up the cases of every few people who get together, because they may be a break-away organisation of people who left their own trade union to form such a combination. If we encourage such people to gain representation, we may have difficulties in connection with the joint machinery, because the Whitley Council machinery has been in existence since 1932, so far as hospitals are concerned. If we accept what these people say and the Minister recognises them as a negotiating body, we shall be


flooded with applications from all sections of the hospital services. I support the attitude of the Minister. I do not think these people are entitled to be recognised as a negotiating body, because there are other organisations, and in particular one outstanding organisation, which has, in all these years, been representing every section of the hospital services.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: I think the trade union movement may come to regret very much the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Hardy). A more dangerous admission than he has made I could hardly imagine. The hon. Member said that if the application were to be granted, the Minister would be flooded with other applications from existing trade unions. I do not believe that that is true, but, if it were, I would not attempt to make such a damning attack on the existing unions as the hon. Member for South Salford has done. It is the most dangerous suggestion I have ever heard. May I restate the issue, which was so admirably stated by my hon. Friend in opening this important Debate, and, in doing so, attempt to clear away some of the irrelevancies which have surrounded it. The position is one which is entirely reasonable to everybody concerned, and which it was hoped would be settled without undue controversy.
The hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) based his case on the manifesto of the other unions of February, 1948. He explained how they expressed their opinion—which was no doubt a quite honest opinion—that they were perfectly able effectively to cater for all the needs of the hospital officers. That was one of the opinions expressed, and, on the basis of that opinion, quite logically, they prophesied that if this Federation was formed, it was unlikely to strike any roots. I have no doubt that they were perfectly honest in that opinion, and it may have been a perfectly proper opinion to hold. On the other hand, those who wished to form this Federation held the opinion that the provision of the Health Service would substantially alter the position of hospital officers vis-à-vis their governing bodies, and it was felt that the formation of a collective organisation was necessary in order to protect their industry.
One set of opinions thought that the existing organisation was sufficient, and another set thought that a new organisation was desirable. There were two perfectly honest opinions, and the only thing to be said is that the people who held the second opinion have been proved right because, contrary to all the prophesies, this new Federation has quite clearly struck roots, and is now growing very rapidly. Therefore, the whole question is not whether it is possible for these people to join some other union; nor are we concerned as to whether or not it is better for these people to join, say, the Transport and General Workers' Union, or to have their own union. All that we are concerned with is to make it perfectly clear that it is only reasonable that they should be allowed to choose for themselves, and that their organisation should be given proper recognition.
The only other point I wish to make is this. I think it would be for the convenience of the House to make absolutely clear the position challenged by the hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Haydn Davies) about the staff side turning down this application without investigation because, as a matter of fact, that can be proved from the documents. The National Federation made application on 9th July, and received no answer at all until 8th October, 1948, when they received the following letter:
I placed before the staff side of the above functional council at a meeting held on Wednesday last, the 6th instant, the request contained in your letter of 9th July for recognition of the National Federation of Hospital Officers. On consideration of the request, I was instructed to inform you that the application was not approved.
It is obvious from that reply that the application was turned down without any investigation into the nature of the Federation. In their letter of 18th October to the Ministry of Health, the Federation said:
It is significant that no inquiries of any kind were addressed to the Federation in regard to its membership or the extent to which it could properly claim to be a truly representative body of the hospital officers of the country.
Therefore, there can be no question whatever that my hon. Friend is entirely in the right.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Haydn Davies: I had no intention of taking part in this Debate tonight, and it is only because of the invitation extended to me by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) to interrupt him if his facts were wrong or his statement was not quite true, that I rise to speak. It is perhaps quite wrong that I, as a governor of a teaching hospital and of a number of other hospitals, should attempt to talk on what is a very complex problem within our hospital administration.
The hon. Baronet has not rendered a service to the hospital administration of this country by raising this matter tonight. If this discussion could have helped the hospitals along, I would have welcomed it, but I have a feeling that his whole intention was to throw a spanner into the works and endeavour to make things more difficult for those of us who have to administer the teaching hospitals of this country. There is no section of hospital workers, from the highest down to the lowest, who cannot be represented on the staff side of the Whitley Council through their appropriate trade union. If they say they cannot, the answer is that it is sheer snobbery. We know that in various sections of this and other professions we still find that some people think it is injurious to their dignity to belong to an appropriate trade union. There is no one in any section of the administrative staffs of our hospitals who cannot be represented through the appropriate trade union unless they feel that it is infra dig to belong to a trade union.

Lord John Hope: When the hon. Member says "appropriate," in whose eyes is it supposed to be appropriate?

Mr. Haydn Davies: I know perfectly well which is my appropriate trade union; so does any other professional man who really wants to find out what is his appropriate trade union.

Lord John Hope: Including, therefore, the National Federation? Does the hon. Member not allow them the choice of their appropriate trade union just as he reserves to himself the choice of his own appropriate trade union? Is that his argument?

Mr. Haydn Davies: No, on the contrary. Before this new organisation, this

mushroom growth, grew up, there were appropriate trade unions which could have taken all of them in, but they would not come in because they felt that they ought to belong to something "super," something above the ordinary adminisrtration on the trade union side in hospitals. I have every sympathy with the members of this new organisation; I know lots of them and I have to work with them day by day. My one condemnation of them—and I have told them so personally on the floors of the hospitals—is that they have tried to walk out of the ordinary trade union organisation in an endeavour to make for themselves something above the level of any other organisation. That is why I say it is quite wrong for us in this House tonight to be boosting the claims of these people for separate representation. There is not one of them who could not be represented through the ordinary trade unions and the ordinary trade union machinery of the staff side of the Whitley Council.
This is holding up the smooth administration of our hospitals. I know for a fact that many of these people were looking forward to tonight's Debate because they knew that the hon. Baronet was going to raise this subject. They knew very well that I had refused to raise it. They have taken great hope because the Conservative Party were going to raise the banner of "free trade unionism" or, as I would say, the breakaway unions. I have told them that I will have no truck with it. Let me plead with the Opposition. I do not mind them being political; I do not mind them attacking the Labour Party or this Government, and going for us good and hearty, but I ask them not to try to interrupt the work of our hospitals in order to score cheap political points.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: I think that the speech just made by the hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Haydn Davies) was one of the most extraordinary speeches ever made in this House. I wholly fail to understand the basis of his arguments. I think we ought to be grateful to the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) for raising this matter, which is obviously important and has considerable influence on matters beyond the immediate scope of this discussion. I should


like to ask the hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras one or two questions. First, does he object to any new unions being formed in this country?

Mr. Haydn Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean trade unions or unions?

Mr. Assheton: Trade unions.

Mr. Haydn Davies: Then the answer is "No."

Mr. Assheton: The hon. Member does not object to new trade unions being formed. Why, then, does he object to this Federation being formed?

Mr. Haydn Davies: The right hon. Gentleman must be fair. If he expects me to answer one question, I must be allowed to interpolate "no unnecessary new trade unions"; in other words, breakaway unions.

Mr. Assheton: That, of course, is entirely begging the question. I suggest that the hospital officers who joined this union and formed it did so because they thought there was some need for such a body. May I now put a second question to the hon. Member? Is there any union in this country, including all the big unions he has mentioned, which has as many hospital officers as members as has this Federation?

Mr. Haydn Davies: Yes.

Mr. Assheton: I would challenge him and ask, which?

Mr. Haydn Davies: Since I know something about the origin of this new union, I suggest that on hospital administration the General Municipal Workers, the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Public Employees have far more members, because this Federation has, I think, 2,000 members and they have hundreds of thousands.

Mr. Assheton: I may tell him that he is wrong in his information. This union has more members among hospital officers, administrative and clerical, than any other union in the country, and the Transport and General Workers' Union, which the hon. Member mentioned, probably have not more than one or two hundred at the outside.

Dr. Morgan: I challenge that because I know as a fact, which I personally investigated, that the union of which I am a member, even as a medical man, and on whose national executive I sit—The Confederation of Health Service Employees—has more officers as members than has this union.

Mr. Assheton: I am always willing to give every opportunity to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) and I would like him to tell me how many members there are of that union who are hospital officers.

Dr. Morgan: I honestly could not give the figures straight off. Naturally, I did not expect the question, but I can assure the right hon. Member—and he knows I would not say something which was challengeable—that I have gone into this question personally, and from the investigation I made I am convinced that the Confederation of Health Service Employees has as many officers as members as this union.

Mr. Assheton: I can only assure the House that my information—and I have taken some pains to find this out—is that there are more hospital officers in the National Federation than there are in any other union, including the one just mentioned. If the hon. Member can prove to me that that is not correct, of course I will withdraw my statement. In the Federation there are between 3,000 and 3,500 members.

Mr. Palmer: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the membership of the very old-established and well-known professional workers union—the National Association of Local Government Officers?

Mr. Assheton: Yes, I have taken that into account and I should think that there are at least 500 more in this Federation than in the association which the hon. Member mentions. Well, suppose I am not right, and suppose that this particular Federation has not the largest number of members, then I still entirely deny the basis and the strength of the argument which the hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras put forward. Is it suggested that this Federation, which at any rate has a substantial number of members—it has over 3,000 members—should have no representation? Do hon. Members opposite


who claim to be democrats, think that that is a justifiable argument?
I am sorry that the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) is not here. I always thought he was an old democrat. It disappointed me terribly to hear him take the line he did. He was taking the line that the existing unions must be maintained at all costs, that there should be a monopoly for the existing unions, and that no new unions should be brought into existence. That is not the sort of line to which a democratic assembly like this ought to listen for one moment. If an organisation can be built up with this number of members, and occupy a position of the sort that this Federation does, is it to be denied the right to exist and the right of representation? Hon. Members opposite may laugh because one of its branches is said to have sought to raise some funds by a sweepstake. It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh at that, but when one is starting a new show it is very hard to raise funds.

Dr. Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman is very fair, and is a very fine Conservative, for whom I have personally the greatest respect, as he knows; but he is not being perfectly fair on the point he is making. There is no objection to anyone forming a trade union, even though it be a parvenu union with certain pretensions to trade unionism. It is not that. It is the fact that after the Whitley Council machinery and the functional council machinery has been laid down, a new union comes in. This new union comes in and says, "We want representation on the staff side of the Whitley Council and on the functional council." [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because it upsets the previous arrangements made.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a speech? After all, every interruption, if it becomes a speech, must affect my next calling.

Dr. Morgan: This is a very important point in the Debate, because the right hon. Gentleman is pleading that we are opposed to new unions being, formed, and I am trying to explain to him, a very fair Member, that he is quite wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Could not the point be made if the hon. Member caught my eye? There is a lot of time yet.

Dr. Morgan: I was not sure that I should catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Assheton: I think the point which the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) has made is plain. His complaint is that this union was formed after the Whitley Council was set up. That is the burden of his complaint. But I do not think that is objectionable at all. This, after all, is a new Whitley Council. It is not a Whitley Council that has been going on for years and years. A new Whitley Council has been set up. It appeared, after it was set up, that it did not quite fill the bill. Therefore, this new organisation was formed, and asked the Whitley Council if it could join it. That is all it asked. It asked to join the Whitley Council. The existing members of the staff side of the Whitley Council said, "No, we do not want you."
What I now want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is this. What is his line on this? When he learned—and it took him a long time to learn or to decide—that the existing staff side did not want to accept this new Federation, what did he do? He quite properly made some inquiries from this new Federation as to the numbers of their membership, and he ascertained what those numbers were, and he was told that he might have the opportunity of checking the information from the books of the Federation, and so on. There is no dispute as to the membership. That is accepted. Then he wrote ultimately—or one of his officers did—on 10th October a letter which has been quoted already by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield—a letter which, I think, was really very shocking. In it he said:
The Minister would need to be convinced that the circumstances were such that if the Federation's request were refused a substantial injustice would be done, in that a large proportion of the staff side would be deprived of a voice in these matters.
What a terrible argument to put forward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The argument is that, "We are not going to do justice; we shall not allow this to happen unless a substantial injustice would be done." If that is all we are going to get from the Government—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that the Government should decide


who shall represent the staff in Whitley Council discussions? Is that his proposal?

Mr. Assheton: I suggest that if the Government find that a considerable body of the staff cannot get representation on the Whitley Council, there is only one thing to do, and that is to give them direct access to the Minister and for him to negotiate directly with them. What other decision could be made by the Minister? I say that these people must either be admitted by the Whitley Council or given direct access to negotiate with the Minister. I do not propose to speak at any greater length, but I feel very deeply about this, as do many other hon. Members on this side of the House, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the decision he has made and not expect the National Federation to be satisfied with the final paragraph:
It is open to the Federation to repeat their application at a later date when it will be reconsidered in the light of the circumstances then applying, including the Federation membership figures.

Mr. Blenkinsop: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Assheton: There is nothing wrong with it, except that the Federation is already of considerable consequence, with a membership of over 3,000, and, in view of that, I think that the Minister will have the greatest possible difficulty in justifying his inaction now.

9.47 p.m.

Dr. Morgan: I am very pleased to have the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker. A great deal of what I had to say has already been bandied to and fro in the course of the discussion. The kernel of this problem is the right of a new union, comparatively recently formed from a source which had a number of opportunities in previous years to organise and get representation on bodies connected with hospital matters—the right of this body, when they suddenly reach a certain figure, to ask that they should have representation on particular staff representative bodies which had already been formed. They are now asking that this body, suddenly realising, after the passing of the National Health Service Act, that the voluntary hospitals are now part of the general hospital system, should come in.

Mr. Assheton: Is the hon. Gentleman objecting that this is a breakaway union, or is he suggesting that this is a union of people who never before belonged to a union?

Dr. Morgan: I am not suggesting that this is a breakaway union, and I am not against anyone forming a union. I say that the request tonight is that a newly-formed body which has had no contact before with members of a trade union, is suddenly asking the Minister to give them definite representation on the staff Whitley Council. [Interruption.] At this stage, without any waiting and without any consolidation and reconsideration, they ask that someone on the representative Whitley Council or functional council should be pushed out because they say that they have a certain membership which has not yet been proved. That is my information.
This is a new union of doubtful strength and doubtful permanency, and I doubt very much whether it will last very long. I think that these people will eventually see that they can come into the ordinary general trade union movement and take part in it. That movement would meet them as comrades and friends, having regard to their main purpose—the pay and conditions of the staff employed in hospital institutions. Of course, they will not get an excessive amount of prominence and will not be all powerful, but they will come into the general trade union movement as many other workpeople have done. After all, the pharmacists—for whom the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) speaks—have their own representative on the Whitley Council and on the functional council, and they have never asked that somebody else should be pushed out because they wanted representation.
I am surprised that fair-minded men should put forward a plea of this kind. They talk of political trade unionism. Well, I have been in trade unionism since the age of 20, and although I realise that when trade unionists want certain legislation passed they have to appeal to the body which will agree to try to get that legislation passed—and I agree with that—to say that they are political trade unionists is a mistake. I am inside the union movement, and I know that trade unionists frequently fight for their rights inside the general Labour movement;


sometimes they do not get all they want, but they fight for it and say "These are our terms; we would like you to pass or to consider this legislation." But they do not ask that every other piece of machinery set up and agreed to by all the other trade unions concerned, and by representatives of the staffs concerned, should be put out of joint simply because a new union, never heard of before, suddenly comes into being. I do not think that is a fair request to make.
There are many trade unions, past and present, which had and still have no representation. Some are too small; some are too disjointed; some are not sectionalised enough. For instance, the Transport and General Workers Union has been mentioned. Its health section is definitely sectionalised; it is part of the great union; but that particular section discusses only its own particular problems; it must not be thought that they believe the whole world is full of transport problems; it has its separate organisation.
To urge, as did the hon. Baronet, that this Federation has a greater membership than any other trade union represented on the Whitley Council or the functional council is quite a mistake. I know that the union I represent, with its 6,700 members—a membership which is rising—has a higher proportion of hospital officers—including medical men and medical superintendents—than this Federation has reached so far. It may reach that figure later on, but let us be fair about it.
Why ask the Minister to do something which will upset the whole representative staff side of the Whitley Council machinery in connection with a new Act, when the new national hospitals are taking over? This Debate should never have taken place, and I am surprised at the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) coming into it, because his Parliamentary reputation for fair-mindedness is almost unique. I am really surprised at his entering this Debate and asking for something, when I am sure full consideration of the problems involved would not lead to his acceptance of any of the propositions put forward.
This Federation should wait their turn, prove their membership, and ask for representation on the appropriate occasion, but not now, when this Act has not yet,

so to speak, consolidated itself, and when the machinery has not yet got into full working order; it needs a lot of oiling, a lot of attention, and a lot of adjustment. To ask for this change at this time is one of the biggest political mistakes I have ever known any trade union to commit. The hon. Baronet really ought not to do these sorts of things, which upset the whole machinery. If only he knew the difficulties we have medically, and from the point of view of the nurses, to get things adjusted, in consolidating the status of nurses and of doctors within the service, and the difficulties of grading and adjusting one side to another. It is a tremendous responsibility, on both the professional and the non-professional side. I beg the hon. Baronet to believe that some of us who are little behind the scenes are doing the best we can to get a smooth passage for the Act, which will certainly take at least five years to come into real fruition.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: No one would deny the sincerity of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan). No one would deny the efforts he has personally made to ensure the greatest possible success of the working of the National Health Service Act; but, as I understand it—and he must forgive me if I misunderstood him owing to the fact that his words were very difficult to catch from this side of the House—the conclusion of his argument was based on the two remarkable alternatives of justice and expediency.
In the first place, he said that representation on the Whitley Council of the National Federation of Hospital Officers must not be admitted out of justice to those already on the Council, and, in the second place, he said it ought not to be admitted because as a matter of expediency it would be unwise to disrupt the existing arrangements that have been set up.

Dr. Morgan: At the present time.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Yes, at the present time. I have never yet known an argument which claimed to have justice and expediency as its two supports which did not fall between them both. It is quite impossible to walk upon these two legs. The chronological history upon which he built is not quite right. and


his case was rather given away by the speech of his hon. Friend who spoke earlier in the Debate. I say that for this reason.
The House has already heard that it was towards the end of 1947 that the Minister decided to set up the staff side of the functional council. We have heard that it must have been about that time that the unions and organisations which were to be represented on the Whitley Council issued their manifesto. The first meeting of the officers who subsequently became the National Federation was on 9th January, 1948. The manifesto which the hon. Member quoted stated that it had come to the notice of these other unions that a movement was being put on foot to bring about this new organisation. Therefore, it must have been at the end of 1947, and it was at the end of 1947 that the Minister provisionally appointed the staff side of the functional council. Therefore, the argument that has just been advanced must necessarily fall to the ground, because when the proportions of membership of the different organisations represented on the Whitley Council were being worked out, it was then already known that the National Federation was coming into being, and allowance could have been made for them.

Mr. Burden: The actual position is that the administrative and clerical staff side was constituted on 7th September, 1947, which was before the National Federation came into existence, and the constitution of the staff side was determined at that date.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I am very grateful to the hon. Member, because his date confirms what I was saying. Actually, I thought it was a little earlier, but the time-lag between November, 1947, and January, 1948, is shorter than I anticipated. Therefore, there is still less excuse for this provisional set-up not being taken into account in the appointments.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: There is, therefore, still less reason for this provisional

set-up not having taken into account the possibility of a very large number of unrepresented administrative clerical and technical staffs in hospitals gaining representation on the Whitley Council.
I came to this Debate as a result of a letter from a constituent of mine, who sets out the facts fairly and squarely from his own point of view as a hospital worker. He said that the Federation is a nonpolitical body—which is admitted—and that he does not believe that politics and hospitals should mix; the suggestion that hospital employees should join one of the existing trade unions which either have political interests or which have no knowledge of hospitals is not acceptable. There he is wrong, but the writer shows clearly that the existing trade unions have not brought to his knowledge the opportunities which their representatives here claim they can offer to prospective members. My constituent wishes to enlist our help in ensuring that the Federation shall obtain representation.
That was the basis on which I came to this Debate, but on hearing the speeches of Members opposite I thought this was a matter which was only indirectly concerned with the Minister. It is far more a struggle within the trade union movement between members of medical and hospital professions. The alarming thing is that the speeches to which we have listened from Members opposite show abundantly that what they are trying to do is to enforce the closed shop in these particular grades. That is something which this House ought not to tolerate for a moment.
The Minister has an opportunity of finding a way out. He has here, as I think we have now established, a properly constituted representative body, containing a great number of these particular grades of workers, who are not represented solely by any other union. He has this body with whom he is entitled, if he thinks fit, to have separate negotiations. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should say whether or not, after setting up a provisional council, he is justified in refusing to allow matters to be reopened when that council does not admit to its deliberations a body which is far and away more representative than any other body which claims to represent this particular class of worker. I hope that when he replies to the Debate he will say that these


people, who, for reasons which presumably are amply sufficient—and they are responsible people; they are entitled to make up their own minds—do not wish to join an existing union and have gone to the trouble of setting up their own, will be recognised as a body with which the Ministry can deal separately.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Asterley Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for the Park division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) has said that this Federation is a spoof organisation. I cannot find any evidence that it is a spoof organisation. It may well be—I do not express any opinion—and it appears that there are two ways in which it might be bogus. It may be bogus because of its fictional membership, but from correspondence supplied to me it appears that the Federation has offered to lay open its records and membership lists to inspection by the Ministry or to anybody else. So I do not think that it can be suggested that there is any evidence that this organisation is other than a genuine organisation of over 3,000 workers in the administrative and clerical grades in our hospitals.
The alternative which has been put forward, in the words of my hon. Friend, is that this union has been organised from above. I do not understand what that means. If it means that it has been organised from the Ministry that is clearly not so, because the Ministry does not appear to love it at all. If, on the other hand, it means that it has been organised by some persons who in the past have been opposed to trade unionism, I do not see that that is an argument for refusing recognition today. It may be that they have been converted.
Do not let us assume for one moment that the Conservative Party is opposed to trade unions. Some of the most effective trade unions have been formed by people who are predominantly Conservatives. The only unions which they oppose are those which do not fit in with their own interests. They have been superlative in organising unions. My own union, the Law Society, which is not formed predominantly of Socialists, is one of the most effective in the country, and is the only one that has a closed shop on the Statute Book. We have very

wisely decided not to enforce the closed shop, and I think it is a wise decision. However, there it is on the Statute Book. That being so, I do not think that it can be claimed that this is a spoof organisation.
Another argument which has been put forward in the memorandum read out by my hon. Friend is that this organisation can only gain members from existing organisations. That does not seem to me to be an outstanding objection to it. If members of existing organisations prefer to go over to another, I do not see that there is any reason why the full force of the existing unions and the Ministry should be called in aid to prevent them doing so. Next, it was argued that this new organisation is unlikely to strike any roots. Who can judge that except the 3,500 members who may or may not continue to pay their membership subscriptions after the attraction of the sweepstake has evaporated? It may be they only go into it for the sweepstake, but in that case we shall soon find out if recognition is given to this organisation on its merits.
I conclude by asking the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies to answer if he will these few questions, which will enable those who have no particular prejudices one way or another about this organisation to decide what are the merits. The first is, what is the total number of administrative and clerical employees involved in this functional council? Secondly, what is admitted to be the genuine membership of this new Federation? Thirdly, if the Minister will not accord to this Federation separate consultation on its existing membership, what membership must it attain before that separate consultation is accorded? Fourthly, how long will the staff side of the functional council be able to prevent this Federation from having representation upon it?
Supposing, in other words, there are, for the purpose of argument, 10,000 administrative and clerical workers involved. At present, there are 10 unions claiming to represent them. Supposing the time comes when those existing 10 unions represented only 10 members each and the new union represents 9,000 odd, at what point can the Minister intervene and say to the staff side, "Now you are not representative of the workers in this


particular industry"? I can see that we cannot have a lot of small splinter unions. It is hopeless to work on that basis. But at what point does representation in a union become sufficiently substantial to get on to the National Council?

Mr. Haydn Davies: May I ask my hon. Friend a question? He has referred to this as a union, but the whole point of the case made by the opposition is that it is not a union, but a Federation.

Mr. Asterley Jones: If I may say so with respect, I am not sure that there is any great substance in that point. After all the term "union" can be applied to a great many organisations. I somewhat irreverently referred to the Law Society as a "union," but I am not sure that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Johnson-Hicks) would agree. This is an organised body for the purpose of representing the views of its members, and whether we call it a union or a Federation does not seem to me to matter a very great deal.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Messer: I wish to preface a word or two about this matter by saying how much I regret the Debate having taken place at all. I am sorry, because it seems to me that this is placing the Minister in a very difficult position. If the Minister did interfere it would immediately create difficulties on the staff side of the Whitley Council. It has always been an understood thing that the staff side of the Whitley Council decide who should compose the staff side of the Whitley Council. That is no new thing, and for the Minister to say that somebody must be accepted against those who are representing the workers in any industry would create an immense difficulty indeed.
This is not the first time this difficulty has arisen. It may be remembered that in the negotiating body representing the Post Office workers there is a minority who have repeatedly claimed the right, and have not been given that right, because of the number of members they represent. I recognise, however, that if there is a considerable body of a particular grade of workers we ought not to prevent them being able to negotiate. The alternatives therefore seem to be two. One is that the staff side of the Whitley Council should be persuaded that it is right

to accept them, or if there is a substantial body they should be given the right of separate negotiation.
My own view is that separate negotiation is a bad thing and I would prefer that this matter should be left to the Whitley Council. It is not fair when the Minister, at some difficulty, has called into existence a new Whitley Council, to have the division which is bound to be created when this body comes along and says, "We have the right to be represented." My view is that the staff side of the Whitley Council and this organisation should be given the opportunity of settling down—for this is quite a new thing—and I am sure that ultimately agreement can be reached.
I think it is a wrong thing to impose on the Minister the obligation of saying that he must insist on recognition, and that this body has a right to membership of the Whitley Council. I would prefer that it should be recognised that this body has a right to continue their negotiations with the other trade unions so that representation can be afforded to them.

10.15.p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I think the last two speakers have brought the Debate where it really ought to be, and instead of leaving a rather nasty taste in the mouth like some of the other speakers from the other side of the House, they have freshened up the whole thing. The real principle at stake here is the right of a body of workers in any profession or trade to form a union if they wish to do so. I do not consider that we are doing any good to the trade union movement, which after all, is the child of the Tory Party—[Interruption.] Yes, it is. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) is a lawyer. He has no doubt forgotten the Act of 1824. He cannot go behind that, because that is when it started under a Tory Government. The fact is that every group of persons should have the right to form a trade union. That has been freely established in this country.
This is obviously a body of some weight, whatever the actual figures may be. It would be a most unfortunate thing if, because of the prejudices of those who are already in the fortunate position of being represented on the Whitley Council, this considerable body of influential


people in this walk of life should be debarred. It is said that the scheme is only just settling down. If it is still in a state of flux, should not that be the time to add this extra body to it? I think that this is the opportunity, instead of waiting for five years as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) suggested. I was interested to note that last Thursday, in that very welcome incursion into Scottish affairs when nursing was being discussed, the hon. Member expressed his enthusiasm in favour of the right of nurses to be organised and represented. Why the nurses, and why not these officers?

Dr. Morgan: I thought I made that perfectly plain. I said that I had no objection whatever to anyone organising in a trade union—I like people to organise—but I was against their pressure at present to disrupt something already established.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think I have dealt with that point. I do not think that they ought to be left out and denied this extra privilege which the Whitley Council provides. I hope that the Minister will be reassuring, because a matter of very high principle is involved.

10.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I think that we should be encouraged by the increasing interest which apparently hon. and right hon. Members opposite are taking in trade union problems. This is something wholly new and something which on our side I am sure we welcome.

Mr. Assheton: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to remind him that I was three years at the Ministry of Labour and that I spent a great deal of time discussing and dealing with trade union methods?

Mr. Blenkinsop: There are two main issues which have been raised tonight. It is rather unfortunate that they should have been raised in this way because, almost inevitably, in view of the way in which the matter has been raised, the impression is apt to go out from this House—and it will not make matters any easier—that this affair has some sort of political connotation which it ought not to have. It is unfortunate that the result

of this short Debate will inevitably have the effect of making the position on the Whitley Council more rather than less difficult.
The first of the two main issues is the question of representation on the staff side of this Whitley Council. The second is the question of whether or not the Minister ought to open up direct negotiation with this body in addition to his discussions in the Whitley Council. On the first question, we have had put forward by some hon. Members opposite, but not by all, the suggestion that my right hon. Friend ought to interfere with the staff side. Unquestionably, that is wrong. There is no doubt that if we were to accept that doctrine it would be absolutely impossible to work Whitley machinery.
If we were to have it suggested that the Minister as employer should have the right in any way to settle the form of staff side representation in Whitley Councils, I cannot but think that it would have the most disastrous effect not only upon the Whitley Councils in the Health Service but upon the many Whitley Councils which have been working smoothly and effectively over a wide range of other groups of workers. Frankly, I should like to know whether that indeed was the suggestion put forward officially from the other side, because it is a matter about which I am sure the staff side of Whitley Councils generally would like to know a great deal. They would be very interested to know if it is the suggestion of hon. and right hon. Members opposite that there should be this interference—

Sir J. Mellor: As I started this Debate, may I make my own position quite clear? My suggestion was that, if the staff side would not admit a trade union which, obviously, on account of its strength, should be represented in negotiations, then the Minister should correct the position by allowing that union separate negotiations direct with himself.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am glad to hear that the hon. Baronet is withdrawing from what I understood was the position he was adopting—that a position would arise in which the Minister himself should intervene and in some way insist upon a reconstitution of the staff side.

Mr. Hollis: It is not we who are suggesting that. It is the Minister of Health


himself, because he wrote on the 10th October that it was open to the Federation to repeat their application later.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am coming to that point, on which the hon. Gentleman is raising the second of the two questions which have been raised this evening—the question whether or not the Minister should open direct negotiations, failing the admission of this body to representation on the Whitley Council. I was anxious that this matter should be made quite clear, because I gathered the impression, although I may be quite wrong, that hon. Members opposite were suggesting that the Minister should have the right to interfere with the staff side representation.
The second point is whether or not the Minister, failing a change of representation on the staff side of the Whitley Council, should open direct negotiations. Obviously, it is very undesirable to have to do so. Obviously, it would be very difficult for the smooth working of the Whitley machinery if separate negotiations are going on with another body. As the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has stated, this is not a new matter. It has arisen before. My hon. Friend quoted the case of the Post Office, and I believe that it has also arisen elsewhere.
The difficulty obviously is that it would very much impede the smooth working of our Whitley Council machinery if we were to adopt the suggestion of opening up direct negotiations. As hon. Members opposite realise, after having read a great part of the correspondence which has passed, we have not by any means closed the door to future direct negotiations should we be satisfied that, in fact, a large proportion of the workers in this particular field would, by denial of direct negotiations, be ruled out of representation.
At the present moment, this body claims to have a membership of something just over 3,000, out of a field of some 22,000 workers. We do not feel that that is sufficient to warrant our interference with the existing Whitley Council, with the consequent danger of breaking up the existing Whitley Council arrangements, which we have got to face if we do open these direct negotiations. It would mean that we should be in danger, in effect, of dismissing the claims of the

larger proportion of the employees as against the claims of the smaller. We accept the claim of this new body in regard to its membership; it is not very large, neither is it small. I accept the fact that it is a growing proportion at the moment, and, obviously, we would have to review this matter again at a later period.

Mr. Assheton: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with one of the points I made, that this particular union has more members in it than any of the unions represented on the Whitley Council?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am not denying that claim; I do not know whether that is true or not; but I do know that it does not represent anything like the total number of the workers represented on the Whitley Council at the moment, and that is the issue which we must consider.
This is not the only point. It was stated quite correctly in the letter quoted that it is not purely a question of membership. My hon. Friends who have had long experience in the trade union movement know very well that many comet-like bodies grow and disappear again fairly rapidly. It is a fair point that we must be sure not only of the precise size of the membership but also be satisfied before we open up negotiations that it is becoming established as a permanent body with some real title to claim representation.

Lord John Hope: About how long does the hon. Gentleman think that would take?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am not going to commit myself to a time limit or to precise numbers. Hon. Members opposite seem to suggest that this is a wholly novel situation. It is nothing of the kind; in this we are following the practice laid down in other cases, and I think it is right and fair that we should not only consider the numbers that would be excluded from representation if we did not initiate direct negotiations, but that we should also consider whether or not it has a reasonable claim to become an established body. In view of our past experience over a wide variety of fields of a number of bodies that rise and disappear again fairly rapidly, I hope that hon. Members opposite are not going to suggest that the staff side of the Whitley Council that has been developed with


such care and such success over these last months should be lightly set aside for the claims of a body that has not yet had adequate consideration.
After all, this particular body has only been in existence for a comparatively short time, and in comparison with the organisations represented on the staff side of the Whitley Council it has been in existence hardly any time at all. On those grounds, while not finally closing the door to this body, I must say that there must be time for further consideration of this matter and that both the question of membership and the question of the stability of the body itself must be taken into account.

Lord John Hope: If the case is as simple as the hon. Gentleman has stated it to be—and it may well be—why on earth did it take his Ministry all these months before they decided to turn down the claim? They could have found out in five minutes what the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Not at all. Hon. Members opposite obviously know very

little about trade union representation, about the Whitley Council organisation, and how vitally important it is to try to get co-operation all along the line. They seem to have been suggesting throughout, when they talked about the closed shop and all the rest of it, that here we are talking about one or two unions. We are not; we are talking about more than a dozen unions in this field, and, therefore, there is no question of isolation at all.

Mr. Keeling: I very much regret that the Minister has not replied to the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) who really conceded the whole case made on this side when he said that this new union was definitely entitled either to be admitted to representation on' the staff side of the Whitley Council—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.